xml-dev - Re: SAX2: Namespaces and syntax of compound names

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

David Megginson wrote:
> 
> I have just heard a good argument for using the
> 
>   "{URIpart}localpart"
> 
> syntax for compound names rather than the
> 
>   "URIpart localpart"
> 
> I have always preferred the second format because it is easier to
> split (most libraries have a built-in function for splitting around a
> single character), but someone pointed out that the first format has
> the advantage that you can tell simply by testing the first character
> whether or not you have a compound name.

I guess I'm still not at all sold on the notion of turning
legal XML names into illegal ones that embed namespace URIs.
To each his/her own, I guess.


> Of course, Java will still be happier with the second, since String
> operations in Java are painfully expensive.  What does everyone else
> think?

The cost of answering the "what is the namespace for this element?"
and "what is the unscoped/unprefixed name of this element" questions
will be about the same in both cases.  The cost of comparing the long
strings (URI + local name) for equality will also not differ much,
but of course the parser could intern them so that the comparison is
a constant time "==" operation.

- Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)