Re: namespace node implementation

james anderson wrote:

>> Yes.  I think we're in violent agreement.  I was making the same point 
>> to James Anderson.
> no, i suggest that the distinction is slightly different.

Sorry - I was over-simplifying.  We were disgreeing on the importance of 
  "nice" namespace serialization (beyond correctness), but of course you 
wouldn't emit obviousl;y redundant attributes.

> to the best i could follow from the examples and the 
> posted schematic algorithm, the proposal was to fabricate elevated 
> namespace nodes as a side-effect of combination operations.

I'm unclear on your terminology.  I don't know what an "elevated 
namespace node" is or what you mean by "combination operations".  For 
the latter, do you mean element constructors with computed content, such as:
My proposal is to *not* fabricate any nodes as a side-effect, but to 
*re-use* the namespace mapping of $b.
	--Per Bothner

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 13:45:24 UTC