This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: handling namespaces in advance Re: namespace required in transform
- From: "James Fuller" <james dot fuller at o-idev dot com>
- To: <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:39:54 +0100
- Subject: Re: handling namespaces in advance Re: [xsl] namespace required in transform
- Organization: o-iDeveloper ltd.
- References: <002601c23157$597e9960$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
> > I don't see why the actual syntatic construction of xml could
> > not itself be abstracted( instead of angle brackets, why not
> > slashes...etc ) and defined, a sorta schema for base/physical
> > format; maybe this is a route of introducing binary xml....ok
> > yes there are issues all over the place, just a thought.
>
> This is precisely why XSLT and XPath define the data model as an
> abstraction. You don't have to create the data model from a source XML
> document, you can create it from anything. If you want to define a
> format that is like XML except that the namespace declarations are
> contained in the end tags, you are free to do so, so long as you can
> parse it into the XPath data model. Whether it will catch on or not is
> another matter...
hmmmm, sometimes I think the W3's best intentions get buried in the
language.....wow....completely missed this point !
sorry to extend this thread, this is a very interesting point....which is
particularly relevent in a current project that is hitting performance
issues, and I am desperate for any fallback positions.
so I assume I have to read http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/ again, and
this time I have to 'get it'...any other pointers to related work would be
greatly appreciated....but after 5 minutes of googling....I suspect yet
again, that I am walking down a lonely path.
thx for making yet another concept clear to my poor little mind.
cheers, jim fuller
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list