[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Formula subcommittee status
I said: > > I propose that they do this trivially - if it has a potential > > namespace name followed by ":", it's the namespace. > > And that presumes going through every attribute in the spec and saying > it might or might not contain QNames? They do need special processing > after all. Oh, I'm sorry, I meant only for formula attributes. They're supposed to begin with a namespace anyway (per spec), and they need special processing anyway to be used. So for that special case it makes sense. Yes, I agree, in the general case doing this would make things very hard. > But just to repeat, I do think we need a general position on this > question -- is it OK to use QNames in attribute content, and if so > where? -- rather than sweep it under the rug of short-term expediency. > That was my point in raising the question. I think that's an excellent question. In general, we shouldn't do this often, but I think we have to say it's okay for formulas because people already depend on that. I don't know if there are any other places where that occurs, though, I think it's quite rare. It'd make sense to create a list of places where it's okay (formulas and maybe a few other places), and recommend NOT using them in the rest. --- David A. Wheeler
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]