Also, I don't see this as being "bug compatible", I see it as being "bug
aware". We know that people will be using the improper method of
declaring namespaces and that there may be nothing we can do to stop it,
so why not accept that it'll happen and deal with it? It's such a minor
change to the code that I don't see what the big deal here is.
- 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.
