Hi :) On Wed 13 Jul 2016 15:24, to...@tuxteam.de writes:
> Referring to Oleg Kiseliov's paper [1], there are actually three > things involved: This summary is helpful, thanks. > What is missing? From my point of view: > > - At xml->sxml time, the user doesn't know which namespaces > are in the xml. So it would be nice if the XML parser > could provide that. For some documents you do know, of course. And for larger perspective, I think that SSAX gives you all the tools you need to build specialist and very flexible XML parsers. So to an extent solving the general problem isn't necessary -- we can always point people to SSAX. But that's a bit rude ;) so if there are common patterns we should try to capture them in xml->sxml. I see this bug as being a search for those patterns, but without the requirement of solving the problem in its most general form. > - It would be super-nice if the XML parser could put that > into the same nodes it found it, as described in [1] > (i.e. in the (*NAMESPACES* ...) pseudo-attribute). > This way we wouldn't have a global mapping, but one > that resembles the original XML, even with the same > prefixes. Less surprises overall. The round trip > xml -> sxml -> xml would be (nearly) the identity. > > With Ricardo's patch it would lump all the namespace > declarations up in the top node, which formally is > correct, but might scare XML people a bit :-) ACK. > - At sxml->xml time there should be a way to somehow > generate prefixex for "new" namespaces. I don't know > at the moment how this would work, that depends on > how the user is supposed to insert new nodes in the > SXML. Does she specify the namespace? Both prefix > (aka namespace-id, under my current assumption) *and* > namespace? (note that the namespace-id/prefix alone > wouldn't be sufficient). ACK. What do you think the next step is? I am happy to wait FWIW, dunno if Ricardo has any feelings here. Enjoy your holiday :) Andy
