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/