QName interpretation [Re: Next Round]

james anderson James.Anderson at mecomnet.de
Fri Jan 22 14:46:20 GMT 1999

John Cowan wrote:
> Tyler Baker wrote:
> > Very true, but sometimes applications (or even the DOM) may want to preserve the exact
> > document structure in memory and be able to write out that exact document structure as
> > well.  That is the only reason for providing the prefix and qualified name methods.
> Again: not so.  Interpreting QNames in unexpected positions is
> also sometimes necessary.

As well may be. It remains, however, that the only *time* when such an
interpretation has value is in the parser's dynamic context. Which means that
there are two options.
1. The parser offers an interface which enables a processor to map qualified
names to universal names within the parser's dynamic context. This is just the
same facility which the parser itself needs - exposed to the processor.
2. Cache the dynamic context in each *element*. Note - not each *name*. This
is possible. It is necessary if it is desired to retain the naming
implications of a given encoding in the face of side-effects in the DOM. (It's
the upward-funarg problem revisited.) Otherwise it is a waste of space and time.

Otherwise "interpreting QNames in unexpected positions" can be guaranteed to
produce "unexpected results".

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)

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list