[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Binary XML" proposals
- From: Ken MacLeod <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:29:31 -0500
Joe English <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Al Snell wrote:
> > [using a string table for element and attribute names]
> That's the approach I used in Cost; it works well. An added bonus
> is that you can replace string comparisons with pointer comparisons.
> This starts to break down when you throw namespaces into the mix
> though, since element and attribute names are no longer simple,
> atomic values. For example it's possible that 'foo:bar' and
> 'qux:bar' actually represent the same thing, and that an element in
> one part of the tree named 'foo:bar' may be _different_ than another
> element with the same name in a different part of the tree.
> I haven't yet seen or thought up a fully satisfactory solution to
> this problem...
In Orchard, I use the tuple of (URI,LocalName) for element and
attribute names, instead of the QName, and it works great.