It seems to us that adding attribute i18n, through
namespaces can be naturally logical, flexible, appropriate
for the task, and relatively simple.
My immediate reaction is that this is a curious and rather unusual use of
namespaces, but it could be made to work.
The only partly missing
piece is namespace and/or prefix safety, at matching time, in
the matching function, in XSLT.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by "namespace and/or prefix
safety", but it seems to me that your design is over-reliant on namespace
prefix matching and that can't be right.
Before we question XML's ability to be the universal
information language, can we still try to use XSLT to meet
these "real world"
requirements? Do you already think that it is impossible?
Of course it's possible. But I'm not sure that this particular way of doing
it is sound. You seem to be suggesting "My design is the only possible
design, and I can't make it work, therefore XML is deeply flawed." The fault
is in the premise...
Regards,
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--