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

Re: "Binary XML" proposals

• From: Ken MacLeod <ken@b...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:29:31 -0500

Joe English <jenglish@f...> writes:

> Al Snell wrote:
> > [using a string table for element and attribute names]
> 
> That's the approach I used in Cost; it works well.  An added bonus
> is that you can replace string comparisons with pointer comparisons.
> 
> This starts to break down when you throw namespaces into the mix
> though, since element and attribute names are no longer simple,
> atomic values.  For example it's possible that 'foo:bar' and
> 'qux:bar' actually represent the same thing, and that an element in
> one part of the tree named 'foo:bar' may be _different_ than another
> element with the same name in a different part of the tree.
> 
> I haven't yet seen or thought up a fully satisfactory solution to
> this problem...

In Orchard[1], I use the tuple of (URI,LocalName) for element and
attribute names, instead of the QName, and it works great.

  -- Ken

[1] <http://Casbah.org/~kmacleod/orchard/>

• References:
  • RE: "Binary XML" proposals
    • From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>
  • Re: "Binary XML" proposals
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: preceding/following sibling -- XSL snippet
• Next by Date: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Previous by thread: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Next by thread: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread