[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Next Round

• From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:05:03 -0500

Bill la Forge wrote:

> Why not support Namespaces through a filter? Why put everything into a monilithic parser?
> If we have good support for filters, then we can have a reasonable scope for parsers and
> allow applications to configure their filters to meet their particular needs.

There is an efficiency improvement if parsers do their own namespace
processing, simply because otherwise you have to search linearly
through each attribute to hack on it and check it for being an
xmlns[:*] attribute.

But I certainly agree that retrofitting namespace processing using
a filter is a Good Thing.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@c...
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: Next Round
    • From: "Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Next Round
• Next by Date: Re: Word and XML (was: XML standards coherency and so forth)
• Previous by thread: Re: Next Round
• Next by thread: Re: Next Round
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread