Re: "Binary XML" proposals

[Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>]

Joe English <jenglish@flightlab.com> 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[1], I use the tuple of (URI,LocalName) for element and
attribute names, instead of the QName, and it works great.

  -- Ken

[1] <http://Casbah.org/~kmacleod/orchard/>