- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:48:50 +0100
- To: mhk@mhk.me.uk
- Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Although solutions along the lines you suggest have been proposed, the WGs' current preference is for an alternative approach, which is to keep namespace context information for atomic values of type QName and NOTATION. This would solve the problem not only for free-standing attribute nodes, but also for free-standing QName values. but not (as you say later) for the most common case of qnames in attribute values, xpath expressions and other cases that are not explictly typed as qnames. One disadvantage of the proposal you made, where namespace context information is attached to attribute nodes, is that a lot of quite unnecessary namespace information would be carried around "just in case". Logically, it would also be needed for free-standing text nodes. Yes, I was just hoping that I'd be able to trust your abilities to optimise away this cost in the implementation. However that isn't always possible I guess (which is presumably why namespace nodes have become unpopular, that you can't always avoid really building the things). Anyway thanks for the response. I'd suggest that you _don't_ need to track this part of my message in your official issue tracker, that is, consider this message thread closed if the editorial fix to the function names is made. I'm happy that you note that the issue of qnames in content is under active consideration, and am happy to let this part of my message be dropped. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 07:50:01 UTC