XObjects

[David Brownell]

Michael Kay wrote:
> 
>	 I found with experience
> that it was simpler to define the association between an element-type and an
> element-handler class using a setElementHandler(tag, class) interface,
> rather than defining it in the element handler for the parent class. For
> example, it works far better when the processing for a <A> tag is identical
> regardless whether it appears within an <X>, a <Y> or a <Z>.

This was our conclusion too.  If nothing else it's the 80/20 tradeoff
to say this is how it works ... other cases can be handled by letting
the <X>...</X> elements handle child <A ...> tags as appropriate.

Also, context-specific associations fly in the face of DOM support,
since DOM factories provide no such context for element creation.
One could forgo compatibility with that model; but why?

- Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)