SAX2: Namespace proposal
david at megginson.com
Mon Dec 20 16:58:01 GMT 1999
Tim Bray writes:
> At 08:21 AM 12/20/99 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
> >> - a pure namespaces view
> >> - a simultaneous namespaces and XML 1.0 view
> >> - a pure XML 1.0 view
> >I agree -- I think that this is the cleanest approach.
> I have a great deal of trouble imagining a situation in which the
> "simultaneous" view is desirable or even safe. Could someone help out
> with a use-case please?
The classic use case is a transformation where the result will be
still used by an author, sort of an XML sed. I don't find this case
particularly persuasive, but clearly the DOM WG did, and as a result,
the Infoset was constrained to follow.
What I like about James's approach is that it's transparent for proper
Namespace processing -- you get what you expect -- and the (very
slight) extra difficulty is offloaded onto those who want the original
> If I'm right, then given that SAX1 already does the pure XML1.0
> view, why do we need more than one view?
When you need both simultaneously. I have never encountered such a
case, and I imagine that it's mostly imaginary, but I would like to be
able to manage a little more DOM2 compatibility in SAX2.
All the best,
David Megginson david at megginson.com
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev