There is a problem there:
<foo xmlns="bar"/>
will that get recognized correctly with your hack?
What about:
<x:foo xmlns:x="bar" xmlns:y="bar">
<x:baz/>
<y:baz/>
</x:foo>
(I'm not sure about this one.)
Will it also not have the unintended side-effect of eliminating
redundant declarations the programmer may have put in intentionally?
Maybe that's already the case ..
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
> My change is checking to see if the attribute name starts with "xmlns:"
> and if so, check to see if that namespace has already been declared. If
> so, skip it. No problem there.
>
> - James Snell
> Software Engineer, Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM
> James M Snell/Fresno/IBM - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace.
> In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the
> world.
> - John 16:33
>
> Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
>
>
>
> > James M Snell wrote:
> > >
> > > There is nothing in my proposed set of changes that would violate rule
> > #1.
> >
> > OK, then Sanjiva, what is your objection?
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
>
> I'd like a bit of evidence beyond a declaration: James, why do you
> think that your changes would not make a valid DOM produce bad stuff?
> What about if someone's using the default namespace?
>
> Also, Sam, in general I don't support the principle of becoming bug
> compatible.
>
> I like your list BTW; its a concise summary of the problem.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
>
