xsl-list
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xsl] Namespaces, bad idea or worst idea? (Was xpath query failing)

2016-04-25 03:35:17
On 23/04/16 17:50, Eliot Kimber ekimber(_at_)contrext(_dot_)com wrote:
Upon reflection I can see that allowing unprefixed elements to be
associated with a namespace was perhaps not the best idea, 

<hat class="documentxml">

I heaved a sigh of relief at the time. Invalidating every document in
the publishing business would not have been a wise move.

And as somebody pointed out to me privately, the fact that there was no
good solution for DTD-based grammars was a problem too. 

That could have been me; I certainly spent long enough whingeing about
it.  As it turned out, it isn't a problem provided your entire document
is in a single namespace, which is the case for the vast majority of
traditional book/journal documents I encounter, for the reason in your
first sentence.

But I think we all expected DTDs to go away much faster than they did.

I never saw them disappearing at all, and they haven't gone yet.
95% of my clients still use them (so maybe I'm serving 0.0001% of the
business :-) even though the master schema is probably RNG.

</hat>

///Peter
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>