Re: 'Re: "Re: [xml] xmlReconciliateNs fix proposal II"'

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:02:01PM +0200, Kasimier Buchcik wrote:
> >   The big problem of that approach is that you try to minimize the number of
> > namespaces put on the new tree but it may not work ! For example XML Schemas
> > allow data to be QNames, and it could go in nodes or attributes *value*.
> > You will not catch them this way, leading to broken QNames in the resulting
> > tree. See the section of the XSLT-1.0 specification about namespace output,
> > basically what you want is make 100% sure that the namespace in scope at the
> > extraction point are still available at the insertion point. 
>
> Wellowello, I'm not into xslt... but if QNames of attribute or node 

  It's not about being into XSLT, if you have "foo:bar" string in some
text content it can be a QName, you have no way to assert it is or not
but it is becomming a unclean but relatively common practice. 

> values have to be handled nowadays, then this asks for namespace 
> references to be implemented for those too, since one cannot ensure that 
> a prefix of a namespace will stay the same during the work with libxml2. 

  Well for a cut and paste operation, that's something we can garantee
but since we don't have atomic cut-n-paste operations it may be difficult
to implement.

> Well, the minimizing is a feature, it does not break any things. Do I 
> still miss something here?

  I dunno, all this is really complex ...


Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/