[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Amelia A Lewis scripsit:
> This is wrong. Sorry to be blunt.
When taking on this role, it is advisable to have all one's ducks in a row.
> I repeat, read the infoset. A namespace declaration is *not* an
> attribute, in infoset terms.
So far so good.
> This is not layering. This is directly changing processing. Namespace
> declarations are not accessible through the infoset attributes
> property. They are only available through the namespaces property, and
> even so not directly (there isn't a namespace declarations property; in
> a true infoset object model, the only way of knowing about a declaration
> is detection of an additional namespace in the namespaces property of a
> newly-entered element information item).
Not so. The [namespace attributes] property is, indeed, what you
refer to as a "namespace declarations" property; what you call the
"namespaces" property, properly named [in-scope namespaces], is
fully redundant to it. Both properties exist in element info items
in order to partly reconcile the conflicting models of DOM and XPath.
It's true that DOM's concerns are not fully represented, although an
Infoset-based DOM (one that discards entity and CDATA boundaries) is
quite possible and even common.
> As an infoset advocate, you really *should* be aware of all the nuances.
Or even as an opponent.
--
One art / There is John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com
All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter
|
