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

Re: Interoperability [long]

• To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Interoperability [long]
• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:33:36 -0800
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401D871B0@u...>

OK, I count myself as unconfused now, thanks ... :)

>     ...at any rate, this may or may not
> be what you expect when moving a <p> element from an HTML default namespace
> to a FOO default namespace.  All I'm trying to do is warn people that they
> may have a perfectly sensible vision of how this works that is not in accord
> with the perfectly sensible vision specified in the DOM, so be very very
> careful. It is not at all obvious how this SHOULD work, and DOM and XPath
> took different approaches.  It's a shame that the W3C didn't knock some
> heads together to make sure this didn't happen ... 

Right, just having clear explanations of the "early" and "late" binding
models more widely used would help.  Could you summarize how
that's different from the XPath model?  I keep thinking of XPath as
being a read-only addressing scheme, and the problem you described
seems like it wouldn't show up in a read-only world.

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Interoperability [long]
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• References:
  • RE: Interoperability [long]
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Interoperability [long]
• Next by Date: Re: Interoperability [long]
• Previous by thread: RE: Interoperability [long]
• Next by thread: RE: Interoperability [long]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread