there are 5 different solutions now to this problem
1) fix the code, so that it works with 2.5.x correctly as well 2) make 2.6.x a prerequisite 3) disable xml_parser_create_ns for 2.5.x 4) use broken code for 2.5.x and fixed code for 2.6.x 5) revert to yesterdays situation (broken for all...)
The ideal solution would be 1), but I'd neither have the time nor am I very keen on doing it. But if someone else wants to fix it, go ahead.
I'd prefer 2) or 3). I use 2.6.x since weeks and I don't have any known problems with it. And if we go for 3), anyone who needs xml_parser_create_ns would have to upgrade to 2.6., otherwise you're just fine with 2.5.x. As nobody reported until now, that xml_parser_create_ns is broken since months, I don't think it's a widely used function anyway. Therefore 4) could also be a solution, 'cause x_p_c_ns works ok, if you're namespace declarations are not too uncommon and if you don't use default namespaces (but if you use namespaces, then the chances are pretty high that you also use default namespaces..). 5) is unacceptable, IMHO.
What do you think?
chregu
On 2/22/04 8:10 PM, Rob Richards wrote:
On Sunday 22 February 2004 01:36 pm, Sterling Hughes wrote:
Mmmh
too bad, will try to find a solution for libxml2 < 2.6
I know, it's late in the release process, but the "old" implementation didn't recognise default namespaces, which broke quite some ext/xml scripts from php4 days and I'd like to have fixed that before 5.0.0
In the meantime either add #ifdef configure checks or revert it out. Recognizing default namespaces shouldn't be hard to hack in to the code that was there, it just requires a bit of a rethink, and I believe we're set on supporting libxml2.5, right?
I personally would like to keep support for libxml 2.5, just because we know it works correctly and stable with the xml extensions and I for one have had little time to extensively test the xml extensions against 2.6.x. Other than that, I have no other reasons for supporting 2.5
However, I believe the namespace support for SAX wasn't introduced or at least wasn't fixed up until 2.6 so the issue may not be able to be fixed without requiring 2.6
That being said, if everyone really wants to require 2.6 I would be fine with it, but we may possibly be introducing new problems and will not be able to fall back to 2.5. From what I have heard from people running 2.6.x have reported, there have been no problems so far, but not sure how heavily they tested everything.
Rob
-- christian stocker | Bitflux GmbH | schoeneggstrasse 5 | ch-8004 zurich phone +41 1 240 56 70 | mobile +41 76 561 88 60 | fax +41 1 240 56 71 http://www.bitflux.ch | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | gnupg-keyid 0x5CE1DECB
-- PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
