• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 05:32:56 +1000
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621F77@r...> <1029896844.25933.160.camel@marajen>

From: "Amelia A Lewis" <amyzing@t...>
 
> 3. API users who have generated schemas with attributeFormDefault
> qualified.  Testing with namespaced attributes works great, but when
> they try to "simplify the serialization" by using the default namespace,
> everything breaks.  This time it's because the namespace isn't declared,
> and trying to explain that elements can be unqualified and in a
> namespace, but attributes can't, is a somewhat painful exercise.  Tow
> occasions, one of them a direct result of revision of schema due to item
> #2; after that a different developer was given responsibility for the
> XML problem and the first became a general opponent XML for any use.

Is this just as much a problem with attributeFormDefault as with namespaces?

> 6. Several instances of the use of java.net.URL for normalization of a
> namespace URI that breaks comparability.  This leads to explanations
> that "a namespace URI is *not* a [java.net.]URL!"

Could you give some more details of this one?
 
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Next by Date: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM
• Previous by thread: Re: Hobbsian processes
• Next by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread