Thanks for the replies. Understood. Methinks the place to start is the spec as indicated.
As any technology comes to maturity and usage patterns emerge specifications should be updated to incorporate new or modified elements of functionality. API's should ultimately be written not to serve the spec in an inwardly looking fashion but outwardly to those who use them. I stick to my guns that it would be more intuitive to incorporate this kind of meta data in the Resource and not in the content. Few want their data modified by a persistence layer. Unless were MS that is... ;-} -----Original Message----- From: Murray Altheim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Top level tag attributes: src:col, src:key Kurt Kavanaugh wrote: > I respectfully disagree. This is our data. in SQL land you do not add > data to a ResultSet. I would argue this is akin to a ResultSetMetaData > item in JDBC land. an XML database should not alter the content in a > return XML set. Data is sacred. If you wish to have this information > available it should be in the Resource object separate from the content. > As it is for each and every returned item resource I must strip this out. > > Just my opinion. Well, we can all argue about this until the cows come home (or are "culled" by the FDA), but there's a big difference between XML and string content from a traditional database, so comparisons are a bit less convincing. As Terry says, this comes down to the "contract" specified by the API, and perhaps modified by any baggage coming from XML itself. While anyone that knows my feelings about XML Namespaces will know I consider them a bastard children of the devil, we have to live with them, especially now since their primary advocate has been knighted. XML content that doesn't *explicitly* contain XML Namespace references in its markup always *implicitly* does contain those references, so the *meaning* (interpretation) of the content is not changed by their presence or absence. What we're talking about in returned results are things much less about meaning, e.g., convenience, ability to perform roundtripping, performance, markuk noise/size, "cleanliness", "godliness", etc. These are to some people important things, no doubt. Myself, I want to be able to store a document and have it come back in identical form, whitespace too if I specify. I want the 'xmlns' attributes to be specified where I specified them, and not where I didn't. Same thing with queries. But I wouldn't claim any of my "requirements" are anything more than my personal version of XML-cleanliness and godliness, not some kind of universal correctness. Just my opinion too... Murray > -----Original Message----- > From: Terry Rosenbaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Top level tag attributes: src:col, src:key > > > These attributes should appear once in the result. That is not a bug. > Currently, there is no way to turn off the source attribution information > (src:col and src:key). > > The bug was that the xmlns:src and other namespace definitions > were appearing in each element of the result thus providing useless > redundant information. AFAIK, that bug () is now fixed. > > Are you still seeing the bug, or are you merely seeing the > normal behavior (xmlns:src once per result at the top level)? > > -Terry Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/ Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK . Did you know that a sturgeon is an inverse henry?
