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

RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature o

• To: "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:47:12 -0700
• Thread-index: AcJIqwk9jySS2jovSSqfGrzS3hRjXgAAKY7w
• Thread-topic: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:38 PM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE:  A multi-step approach on defining 
> object-oriented nature of DOM
> 
> 
> 8/20/2002 8:23:51 PM, "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...> wrote:
> 
> 
> They don't find it a teensy bit confusing that a namespace 
> declaration looks and smells like an attribute in XML syntax 
> and the DOM, but the Infoset (and SAX?) says that 
> declarations aren't in the attribute list for an element, and 
> XPath treats the in-scope namespace as a non-attribute property of 
> an element and doesn't (IIRC) represent the declaration at all?

Like I said Joe Blow developer isn't reading W3C specs. Besides
implementers who cares about the infoset? Secondly I've never seen any
of our users mention attempting to query for a namespace decl. 
 
> They aren't confused when HTTP says that various 
> capitalizations of the same URI retrieve the same 
> representation of a resource, but that XML namespace 
> processors consider them distinct?

I've not seen any complaints about people expecting namespace decls to
allow various capitalizations to refer to the same URI as DNS does with
HTTP URLs. 

> Your users are a lot smarter than I am!

Probably because they don't bother to read the specs and look for
philosophical loop holes like a number of people on XML-DEV. 


-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Putting in a request to go home early is the best way to jinx yourself
and end up working overtime.     

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM
    • From: Sam Hunting <shunting@e...>

• Prev by Date: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented natureof DOM
• Next by Date: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespaces blur (A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM)
• Next by thread: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread