SAX2 Namespace Support
ldodds at ingenta.com
Wed Jan 5 15:47:15 GMT 2000
> In principle (the principle of least surprise), it's very bad
> behaviour for two objects to be == in C++ or equals() in Java if any
> of their publicly-accessible fields differ. Think of sets, for
In this instance though your level of surprise is going to relate
to how familiar you are with the Namespaces spec. After reading
it I'd be surprised if two QNames with the same URIs and same local
parts aren't the considered equal.
The problem though boils down to how often, in reality, XML instances
will have the same Namespace declared twice, with different prefixes.
I'd have thought this would be pretty unlikely. In a data interchange
context standardising prefixes for Namespaces would mitigate this
'problem' and would probably have beneficial side-effects as well.
In a document authoring context I can't imagine using the same
Namespace with two prefixes, except by accident. Readibility
(of the XML) is reduced with Namespaces anyway, sprinkling additional
prefixes around makes this worse.
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