Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: David Megginson <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:51:54 -0700
David Megginson wrote:
> I have just heard a good argument for using the
> 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
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.
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)