Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ron Bourret)
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:46:19 +0200
Michael Kay wrote:
> My vote is definitely for (3), though (1) needs to be an
> option for compatibility.
> But rather than pass through the URN of the namespace in
> each call, I would pass an integer identifying it within the
> set of namespaces used in the document, with a separate
> function to map that to a URN.
> I guess people will also want to know the prefix used.
> Although the prefix is theoretically arbitrary, there are
> likely to be many conventional prefixes in use and
> applications may want to leave the prefix unchanged in an
> output document.
I strongly agree (3 with 1 for compatibility). In addition to the two niceties
Michael suggests, I would like the parser also to parse the namespace PIs. Not
only does this save all applications from writing the same code, parser writers
probably already have low-level functions they can adapt/use for this purpose.
The parser would use a separate callback (not processingInstruction) to return
the namespace information.
-- Ron Bourret
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)