Re: [Sax-devel] Re: SAX survey: expected local name fornon-namespace qualified elements

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 15:18, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> I guess you could argue this makes sense. But it's not what I would 
> expect and others argue that the localName should be the same as the 
> qName in this case. Others may argue for something else yet.
> 
> What this proves to me is that people don't agree. And there is no way 
> to say who's right who's wrong because there is no definition to refer 
> to. The fact is that the notions of local name, prefix, and qualified 
> name are only defined in the context of Namespaces. Once you're out of 
> this context they therefore don't mean anything.
> 
> This is why I think it is best to leave them alone (i.e., having them be 
> null) when namespaces processing is off.

I think you've missed the point that the SAX2 API itself IS
namespace-aware, and that flipping a switch to turn off
namespace-processing doesn't necessarily mean turning off chunks of the
API.

I have an incredibly hard time believing that SAX filter writers such as
myself should have to write their code to check different arguments in
the API depending on whether a particular flag was set a given way.  

I have an even more difficult time finding any benefit whatsoever in
reporting information that is actually available as null, though I
suppose I can write yet another SAX filter which compensates for such
peculiar practice.

If you genuinely don't want to think about namespaces and don't want to
know, SAX1 is always an option.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com