On 12/8/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harris Boyce III wrote: > FWIW, here's my input... > >> > Now that 0.2.0 is out the door, here's what I'm thinking for 0.3.0 >> > >> > * I'd like to separate out the IRI stuff into it's own project as was >> > recently discussed. >> >> +1 >> > > I haven't found any evidence of IRI support in .NET so, whether it's > in Abdera or another project, my guess is it will need to be > implemented as well. > Unfortunate. I believe that IRI support was pulled from Java6 as well. I've started the process of extracting the IRI code out into it's own "g13n" (globalization) project that, at least for now, will sit in our dependencies module.
The closest utility that I found was an IdnMapping class [1], though it only references RFC 3490 and not 3987. I'm more concerned with getting the parsing situated first and then tackling IRI support and the like.
>> > * I'd like to review the use of Axiom and decide once and for all >> > whether or not we're going to keep it or ditch it. If we keep it, >> > we should update to the latest release. If we ditch it, we need >> > to come up with an alternative. >> >> Agreed, this needs to get resolved. Personally, I'm in favor of >> reducing our total number of dependencies, so if we can implement a >> parser that doesn't pull in Axiom I'd be all for it. On the other >> hand, if we do that by essentially duplicating all of Axiom, that >> would be unfortunate. >> > > I've been studying the Axiom code as there's no equivalent in .NET, so > an incremental parser will be a large part of work for a .NET > implementation. This prompts me to consider the pros/cons to such a > parser when there's built-in support for XML object serialization. > But that's another conversation... > I fully expect that there will be differences in the way the various language implementations function. Having exact feature-to-feature and behavior-to-behavior parity should not hold things up. Just do what works and get it as close as you can. > [snip] - James
I think I'm leaning towards utilizing the XPath cursor model [2] that's available to provide easy support for queries against the FOM instead of using the DOM impl. And I don't foresee this causing any headaches when it comes time to implementing security (XML-Sec). The cursor model would also allow the FOM to be built as accessed, which might be nice as well. - Harris [1] http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.globalization.idnmapping.aspx [2] http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.xml.xpath.aspx
