On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:05:21PM +0100, Kasimier Buchcik wrote: > > > Daniel, could we have that flag field on xmlDoc? > > > > Explain clearly the semantic of it. A priori I'm not too fond of it > > if we start having different data structure based on what is using the > > library we just make debugging on bug reports near impossible. > > > > Daniel > > Such a flag would enable/disable the attribute creation/addition > functions to perform an automatic ID-detection based on a DTD. > > I have thought about what we already have for using DOM on top > of Libxml2. > > Proposal: > We could integrate the needed ID semantics for DOM > into: xmlDOMWrapRemoveNode(), xmlDOMWrapAdoptNode() and > xmlDOMWrapCloneNode(). > What we are missing in this set of DOM functions is a > xmlDOMWrapAddNode() function, which would implement the desired ID > handling - based on the given options. > > This way we wouldn't need any additional settings on the xmlDoc - just > inside the wrapper itself. A tiny beautiful island, full of DOM.
If you really need to add a new function to the API then okay, it's still way better than different behaviour based on a flag somewhere. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat http://redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
