Subject: Re: [xsl] Namespaces, bad idea or worst idea? (Was xpath query failing) From: "Flynn, Peter pflynn@xxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:35:04 -0000 |
On 23/04/16 17:50, Eliot Kimber ekimber@xxxxxxxxxxxx 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
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Namespaces, bad idea or w, Eliot Kimber ekimber | Thread | [xsl] Using of keys with streaming, Martin Honnen martin |
[xsl] Using of keys with streaming, Martin Honnen martin | Date | [xsl] Best practice for group-adjac, David Sewell dsewell |
Month |