Hi all,
+1 to Elena's suggestions. There are just too many situations where this
is the only elegant solution not to go for the idea.
Cheers,
Neil
Neil Graham
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Phone: 905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Andy Clark |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | > |
| | |
| | 10/18/2002 10:13 |
| | AM |
| | Please respond to|
| | xerces-j-dev |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: XNI: making NamesapaceContext read/write
|
|
|
|
|
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Elena Litani wrote:
> The following are the only interfaces in the XNI that are read-only:
>
> * NamespaceContext
> * XMLResourceIdentifier
> * XMLLocator
>
> Given that XNI now uses NamespaceContext, instead of
> start/endPrefixMapping, some components in the pipeline need to be able
> to add namespace declarations. Consider, for example, the following
> case:
Yes, this seems like the natural progression. Everything
*else* is read/write so why aren't these interfaces that
you list the same? Since we're trying to round out XNI
by the end of the year and make the final 1.0 changes, I
think that this is worthwhile.
What does everyone else think?
--
Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
