You 
haven't shown us any details of how the XML is being processed, so we can't tell 
you why the namespaces have ended up the way they are. You haven't even told us 
if XSLT is being used.
 
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/



  
  
  From: Anishek Agarwal 
  [mailto:anishek@g...] 
Sent: 07 August 2008 13:03
To: 
  xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML 
  Transformation


  
  I still did not get the reply for this. Can someone please 
  comment.

Anishek


  On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Anishek Agarwal <anishek@g...> wrote:

  
    According to the xml specification though http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#scoping-defaulting the 
    inner scope definition overrides the parent one if the NSAttName is the same. In our case of the xml 
    above it is the same as its the default namespace. So i dont see why the 
    inner scope namespace declaration element be removed and use the parent namespace. 


Anishek
    
    
    


    On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...> wrote:

    
      > For better or worse, the digital signature mechanisms follow 
      XML
> Canonicalization by deciding that namespace prefixes are 
      significant: see
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#NoNSPrefixRewriting
>
> 
      for discussion.

!  That's good to know...

I guess 
      it all comes down the fact that the prefix isn't expanded to
the 
      URI.... which is the root cause of the problem of XPath requiring
the 
      prefixes to be mapped elsewhere.

I guess there is an argument for 
      dropping the URI altogether, and just
using the prefix.  Some 
      things would get harder, but many more would
get a lot easier.


--
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/