Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

xom-interest - Re: [XOM-interest] XOM 1.2.8 released

xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: XOM API for Processing XML with Java

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Regier Avery J <RegierAveryJ AT JohnDeere.com>
  • To: XOM API for Processing XML with Java <xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc: "xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org" <xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] XOM 1.2.8 released
  • Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:44:15 -0500

It seems to be lost here that I am not attempting to bind to the null
namespace. I am attempting to bind a prefix to a non-null namespace that
currently has no prefix because the document did not specify it with one.

- Avery

On May 14, 2012, at 3:34 PM, "Michael Kay" <mike AT saxonica.com> wrote:

>> By this statement it seems that I should be able to create an alias
> for a namespace that currently lacks one. Why make it hard?
>
> It would be rather nice if we had pure symmetry in namespace bindings,
> so you could bind the "null" prefix to either a "real" namespace or the
> "null" namespace, and bind a "real" prefix to either a "real" namespace
> or the "null" namespace. Unfortunately that isn't the way. Of these four
> combinations, XML only allows three - it doesn't allow you to bind a
> real prefix to the null namespace; and XPath 1.0 only allows two - it
> doesn't allow you to bind a null prefix to a real namespace. XPath 2.0
> does allow you to bind a null prefix to a real namespace (the "default
> namespace for elements and types"), but it still doesn't allow the
> fourth option, a real prefix bound to a null namespace.
>
> There are a number of reasons for this asymmetry, none of them in my
> mind very good reasons, but unfortunately there is a lot of emotional
> baggage associated with namespaces, part of which is the insistence in
> some quarters that what I call the "null" namespace is not actually a
> namespace at all, but something quite different. The fact that the
> engineering would be more convenient if we treated it as a namespace
> that happens to have no name doesn't carry much weight with those who
> attach metaphysical significance (aka "semantics") to such matters.
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
>>> IN general, though, why would you want to do that? Outside of the true
>>> ugliness of HTML/XHTML, I've never really seen a need for writing one
>>> expression to apply regardless of namespaces.
>> My immediate use is to translate from a simplified syntax sent over URLs
>> to transform the document being returned from that URL. The client is
>> always giving the path in the namespace associated with the one document
>> returned. The service knows what those namespaces are.
>>
>> I am specifically attempting to implement embed/fields for REST services
>> as presented in
>> REST API Design Rulebook by Mark Massé
>> (O'Reilly). Copyright 2012 Mark Massé, 978-1-449-31050-9
>> Chapter 6, pp 73-77, "Response Representation Composition"
>>
>>
>> I am working through trying to use the new XOM and make all my tests pass
>> again. It really threw a spanner in the works.
>>
>>
>> Avery J. Regier
>> RegierAveryJ AT JohnDeere.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xom-interest-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> [mailto:xom-interest-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elliotte
>> Rusty Harold
>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:49 PM
>> To: XOM API for Processing XML with Java
>> Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] XOM 1.2.8 released
>>
>> As Michael surmised, that's a deliberate bug fix. You should no longer
>> need to bind anything to the default namespace.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> XOM-interest mailing list
> XOM-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/xom-interest



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page