On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 11:17, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> > I _think_ it's because of QNames in attribute/element values, but it may
> > also have to do with canonicalization discussions. I seem to remember
> > it being an issue for the long-ago XML Fragment discussions, but I'm not
> > sure.
>
> If that's the case then why not limit 'in-scope' to mean those namespaces
> used by the element, or it's direct element or attribute content?
>
> Wouldn't that staunch the bleeding?
It might, but it's a lot of work just to figure out whether you need to
keep something around or throw it away, and your results don't apply to
the child elements.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
