[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Interoperability [long]
> - The DOM WG naively believed a literal reading of the namespace spec and
> treats prefixes as mere syntax sugar and URIs as the "real thing". This
> causes problems when interoperating with specs that treat prefixes as being
Huh? The DOM spec preserves both. I don't follow. Since it
preserves both, what's the problem? Implementation bugs?
> - Elements created with a namespace URI may not have a prefix, and you may
> have to invent one when you need one, e.g., when serializing.
Yeah, but I remember constantly getting "writing XML from DOM is
out of scope" whenever I raised similar issues. That's why it's rather
important not to put such things prematurely out of scope ... :)
> - since DOM nodes don't intrinsically know their namespace (unlike XPath
> nodes, as I understand it), the namespace of a node when moved around in the
> tree may change in undesireable ways unless you take lots of care to make
> sure that it is in the same namespace scope in the source and target
> locations, or that you *intended* to make that HTML <p> element a <p>
> element in the "foo" namespace ....
Now I'm totally confused. Since when is that true? DOM nodes must
be created with namesepaces, which stick to them like glue. Moving a
node around doesn't change the namespace URI, or add one.
There was a discussion when DOM first got namespace support, and
I seem to recall one vendor insisting on that "early binding" approach
rather than matching the "late binding" approach that'd match XML text