Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The Peace Process: DOM and namespaces...
 David Megginson wrote: > Tyler Baker writes: > > > The DOM has an unstated implication that it reflects a valid XML > > document. If you make a call to getNodeName() on an Element node, > > it is expected to return a valid XML name. > > Perhaps, but a violation of an 'unstated implication' can hardly make > something illegal (Tyler's original claim) -- what Tyler actually > seems to be suggesting is that expanding QNames in the DOM goes > against the original spirit of the API, not against the letter. True. A clarification how how much leeway the application developer has on these matters would be something that might be in order for DOM Level 1 Errata. > > > The physical representation of an XML document (as defined by XML 1.0) > > > is not allowed to have characters like '/' and '@' in element and > > > attribute name, but the DOM is not a physical representation; it is an > > > API providing access to one view of a document's information set, and > > > as such, it is not governed by the Name production in XML 1.0. > > > This is one way of looking at it. But this is not clear and there > > is no mechanism defined to tell an application whether the DOM is > > using these illegal names or not. If you write the DOM Document > > back out to XML, you are writing out illegal names because you > > don't know if you are writing out prefixes + local part or > > namespace + local part. > > You gotta check anyway -- what if someone's HTML DOM implementation > were allowing names with illegal letters? Presumably, however, you > have turned on namespace munging somewhere in your DOMBuilder (however > that works), so you know what you're getting. Namespace munging > should *never* take place by default for vanilla XML 1.0 processing > (in Expat, for example, it is a user-configurable option, and for SAX > 1.0, it is handled by third-party filters [which are surprisingly easy > to write]). Yah this is another issue which makes me think that splitting XML 1.0 and XML 1.0 with "Namespaces in XML" into two separate data type entities would be a good thing for the XML community. > > > The XML 1.0 spec does not even require processors to report element > > > names, so in terms of conformance, anything goes kids. > > > > How is anyone supposed to reliably build any sort of architecture > > on XML if everything is this ambiguous. > > We're working on it, but you'd be surprised by what you can do even > with partial specs. XML 1.0 defines the physical representation of a > document as a string of characters; the DOM defines an API into > structured information, such as XML and HTML documents. There is a WG > right now working on the XML Information Set, which will provide some > glue between the two -- I'll keep everyone posted. This looks nice. I agree keep things as abstract as you can as long as you don't leave any gaping holes that cause major side effects elsewhere. Tyler 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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 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...) 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
