On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:53:06 +0100
> From: robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: (Digester) Namespace logic
>
> On Monday, September 3, 2001, at 05:32 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > My thinking was that a Rule with no associated namespace URI must be
> > matched literally against the qualified Name (i.e. including any prefix).
> > In other words, an element
> >
> > <foo:bar ... />
> >
> > would be matched by pattern "foo:bar" in such a Rule. This also is -- or
> > at least should be :-) -- backwards compatible with the way pattern
> > matching worked before namespace awareness was introduced.
>
> that sounds right but i'm still a little confused...
>
> the concrete example in the test case has rules with identical patterns
> '*/bar', say.
> one of which has associated namespace foo the other has no (null)
> associated namespace.
>
> there are 3 logical matching cases for 'root/bar' with varying namespaces.
> 1.[null namespace] match(null,'root/bar')
> 2.[matching namespace] match('foo','root/bar')
> 3.[not matching namespace] match('notfoo','root/bar')
>
> what result should i expect for each?
>
IMHO, 1 and 2 should match, but 3 should not. That being said, I wasn't
thinking much about suffix matches when adding this, so it may or may not
actually work this way yet.
> - robert
>
Craig
