SAX2: Namespace proposal

David Megginson david at
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

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list