Hi Marcel, You are correct. But I think we are acting in some kind of a grey zone: The script is called by the application so belongs to the application domain. Yet the script path is derived from the application view of the node type's namespace prefix, which not necessairily is the same as the system wide used prefix ...
There is probably only one real fix for this: use the namespace uri as the path part, ... Still, I think we can safely live with the current situation as namespace remapping is not something, which should be done very often. Unlike in XML documents, where using different prefixes for the same namespace in different documents is absolutely no deal. Regards Felix Am Freitag, den 07.12.2007, 13:11 +0100 schrieb Marcel Reutegger: > Felix Meschberger wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 07.12.2007, 12:02 +0100 schrieb Marcel Reutegger: > >> the application simply has to set prefix to uri mappings on its > >> session for the prefixes it uses. > > > > Which is what we do and thus have "stable" prefixes, right ? > > not quite. I'm probably just too picky. > > e.g. lets assume I create an application with a custom prefix 'mynt', then I > later find out 'my' is a better prefix. Because my application already does > the > session remapping of 'mynt' to the namespace uri everything is fine. > > from an application perspective it looks as if the view on the workspace is > consistent, but only because the application fixes the inconsistency by > re-mapping the uri. > > just looking at the plain workspace the script path contains 'mynt' while the > node type is prefixed with 'my'. The correct association can only be inferred > from the application and not from the workspace. > > but as I said, I'm probably just too picky, so ignore all this... > > regards > marcel
