please excuse my delay in responding to this.
i was away for several weeks.
"tim's" algorithm does work. it is analogous to the mechanisms used to manage
interned symbols in symbolic processing systems. (eg lisp).
in fact, there is no literal "rewrite" required. if you manage the symbols
properly, sets of symbols are "prefixed" - not individual symbols. the
"rewrite" (ie the binding
/scoping rules) is done by augmenting, changing, etc the names for the sets of
symbols. auxiliary names are generated to ensure uniqueness and serve as the
prefixes should the dom/combined-dtd be reserialized.
the mechanism does require - as noted in the past, that a means be provided to
bind prefixes to uri's with a scope which extends over a dtd. contrary to
other observers, i see nothing wrong with using a pi for this. although it is
not within the scope of xml1.0+namespaces, the pi method is not precluded by same.
Mark Tucker wrote:
>
> Wait, People,
>
>
> I don't see anything kludgy in it. (modulo my preference to
> use expanded names directly in the processor's symbol table.)
i agree; this would be kludgy. names are better managed as elements of named sets.