On 18/06/2006 12:59, Mark Birbeck wrote:
My conclusion is that the awkwardness of using XSLT 1.0 to process XHMTL documents that contain QNames does not justify dropping the use of QNames as a scoping mechanism, especially since QNames are used so widely in XML languages.
My conclusions are the exact opposite: the lack of support for qnames in the vast majority of XML processing tools DOES justify looking for an alternative. We shouldn't repeat past mistakes.
As I pointed out in my response to Karl, a more robust solution would simply to use the full URIs wherever you have currently specified qnames or CURIEs.
Ian -- http://purl.org/NET/iand Blogging at... http://iandavis.com/blog Working on... http://directory.talis.com/
