Re: [Chicken-users] Lowdown & sxml-serializer not working together

[Matt Gushee]

Hi, Jim--

Thanks for all your work on this!

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Jim Ursetto <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Jim Ursetto <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately it doesn't declare the default namespace for html.  You can 
>> work around this by providing a default namespace prefix *and* using the 
>> actual prefix (below, xhtml:) on your elements.  This is kind of ugly.  
>> However, the stock serializer didn't even support default namespaces (!) so 
>> I may have simply overlooked this case when adding support.  I'll see if I 
>> can look into it further.
>
> I've added support for the default (unqualified) namespace ID in the source 
> SXML now; the code is available at https://github.com/ursetto/sxml-serializer 
> while I run a couple more tests.  Formerly, you could render to unqualified 
> names but not use them properly in the source.

I'm not sure what you mean by "use them properly in the source."
Actually, other than the problem with lowdown, I was getting just the
results I wanted before. Specifically, I'm working with my civet
templating system, which I created a few months ago, and up to version
0.3 of sxml-serializer, I got output with a default namespace
declaration and unqualified element names ... the default namespace
was represented in my SXML as '(#f <ns-uri>) ... with sxml-serializer
0.4, they are getting an arbitrary prefix applied to them. So that's a
step backwards for me.

> [Note: below, unqualified names are rendering to the xhtml: namespace, 
> because there is a list of default namespace URI -> ID mappings, called 
> conventional-ns-prefixes.  To override this and render them without 
> qualification, add *default* as the 3rd arg of the namespace association (as 
> the "original prefix").

I'm not following that. Where is there a 3rd argument?

> The word "original" is used as if the XML document was the original source 
> and you had parsed it to SXML;

... which is in fact the case.

> the SXML prefix and XML prefix are permitted to differ.]

I know, and it seems like an unnecessary complication to me ... but I
suppose it must be a useful feature for some users.

--
Matt Gushee