Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terje Norderhaug)
- To: xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:04:15 -0800
At 5:54 AM 2/7/00, james anderson wrote:
>David Megginson wrote:
>> Stefan Haustein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > Ok, replace "complicated" by "unconvential". I do not like
>> > the idea off putting "hidden" meanings to string1 == string2.
>> > Normaly, someone unfamiliar with the concrete implemention
>> > would expect that both strings are java-interned.
>> Agreed -- while the idea (as far as I understand it) is interesting,
>> I'm not comfortable with any serious obfuscation, no matter how
>> clever. I've been coding for money long enough (13 years, believe it
>> or not) to have seen many examples of this kind of thing, and I cannot
>> remember a single one that did more good than harm in the long run.
>If clarity is the issue, then drop the strings and make the names first
>class objects and the behaviour will be documentable. Include a factory
>and the behaviour (for example raw-name-eq, q-name-eq, local-name-eq, or
>whatever), will be extendable and at the discretion of the end application.
I have demonstrated that by interning names in their namespaces, SAX
doesn't have to decide whether names are strings or first class objects.
SAX can allow parsers to use any representation they like for names, as
long as they maintain that equal names are identical if they are in the
I think SAX2 should add an interface for names similar to what is described
by James, but leave the actual representation to the implementation. SAX2
may leave a footnote that suggests (without requiring) a string
representation of names for backward compatability with SAX1 and easy of
use for those that don't understand the implications of namespaces.
-- Terje <email@example.com> | Media Design in*Progress
Software for Mac Web Professionals at <http://www.in-progress.com>
Take advantage of XML with Emile, the first XML editor for Mac!