> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:04:17 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Firstly, somewhere in the documentation we should be more explicit
> about where namespace mappings need to go for the elements from
> records. In particular, that any namespaces for elements in
> recordData need to be mapped in those elements, rather than in the
> wrapper.
>
> For example:
>
> <srw:explainResponse xmlns:zrx="http://explain..../" xmlns:srw=...">
> ...
> <srw:recordData>
> <zrx:explain>
> ...
>
> is bad but still legal XML. Bad because once you extract the record
> from the SRW wrapper, it loses the namespace definitions.
Hah! Yes, of course. Well, I say "of course" now that you've pointed
it out. This seems like the kind of problem that we'd expect to occur
more widely in the XML world. I wonder whether there are existing
guidelines to cover such things? In general, I guess the rule is that
namespace definitions should be placed on the innermost element that
they affect. In the example above, xmlns:zrx is not used in the
<explainResponse> or <recordData>, so it should be moved down through
those elements.
> (As is probably obvious, I'm working on a ZeeRex registry, hence
> finding lots of implementation issues)
Yep, this is excellent -- the best thing that could possibly happen
for SRW and ZeeRex. Only be actually implementing stuff do the bugs
get shaken out. The trick is to make sure that every time you come
across an interoperability problem caused by two implementors
interpreting the specification differently (as opposed to one or both
of them just doing it wrong), the necessary clarification goes into
the specs.
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Football is a simple game complicated by fools" -- Kevin
Keegan, quoting Bill Shankly.
--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/
|