That's true. But in XSL, that attribute contains element type names,
and so I would expect an XSL processor to handle them as such.
> More generally, however, it might make sense to partition rules by
> namespace, either in separate XSL specs or at least in separate
> sections; the reason is that well-known namespaces will often come
> with their own XSL specifications, and the author of a top-level XSL
> spec should not have to duplicate that work.
He wouldn't have to; he can include the well-known stylesheets and
override parts of them. That doesn't imply a need for segregation.
(It is possible that XSL will have stylesheet sections, but I don't
think that namespaces alone necessitate them.)
-Chris
-- <!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN"> <!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN" "<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487 <USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>