Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 10:53 AM 6/2/2002 -0400, Karl Waclawek wrote:
>Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > If "namespace processing is off and we've never heard of namespaces", then
> > we've never heard of QNames either. If you insist on going this route,
> > you'd better change the API to remove the notion of QName when namespace
> > processing is off. "Local name" might at least mean "the name local to
> > element" in cases without any understanding of namespaces.
>I understand it the same way. The confusion in this thread really is:
>if NS processing is off, then which should really represent the
>element name - qName or localName? I agree with you that localName is
>the more natural candidate.
I'm also not certain that we want to encourage developers to look to qName
for anything other than prefix-retrieval in any event. I keep hearing of
developers who rely solely on qName whatever the status of
namespace-processing, and I guess it works for now...
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue