You mean "I don't see why the inner... *cannot be* or *is not* removed"

It can.  Having it there, or not, does not change the semantics of the 
XML.  It's just a side-effect of whatever implementation you are using.

If you really care about this -- for example, doing XML Digital Signatures 
-- then you need something like xml c14n.  Otherwise I would not worry 
about it.

        /r$

--
STSM, DataPower Chief Programmer
WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
http://www.ibm.com/software/integration/datapower/




"Anishek Agarwal" <anishek@g...> 
08/07/2008 08:02 AM

To
xml-dev@l...
cc

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/