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

Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:14:11 +0200
• Organization: nil
• References: <001b01c1e085$47a4a810$6501a8c0@pcukmka>
• Reply-to: james.anderson@s...

Michael Kay wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > Michael Kay:
> > > > And I have yet to see a
> > > > > proposal that cleans up the namespace model without
> > > > breaking applications that work today according to the
> > current specs.
> > > >
> > > James Anderson:
> > >
> > > > To the extent that an application expects a
> > prefix-namespace binding
> > > > which was apparent in the dynamic context of a given
> > document's parser
> > > > to have indefinite extent, the application is already broken.
> > > >
> > > Sorry, but we're on a different wavelength.
> >
> > Let's see if we can tune into the same wavelength?
> >
> ...
> > Can a DOM which cannot support operations like
> >
> 
> I wasn't talking about DOM, perhaps that's why we're not on the same
> wavelength. DOM's object model precedes namespaces and the InfoSet, and it's
> handling of namespaces leaves me completely bewildered.

Then I will resource to the generic characterisation:

Can a document model which cannot support operations like

[the one demonstrated]

be said to work for documents which are namespace-aware?
Can implementations built on such a document model be said to work for documents
which are namespace-aware?

...

• References:
  • RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Naive Question about NS 1.1
• Next by Date: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Previous by thread: RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread