[XML-SIG] SAX namespaces discussion status

[Mike Olson]

Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> 
> 
> I tend to side more with Greg on this matter: I'd rather have the prefix split
> out for me.  4XPath and 4XSLT are absolutely littered with SplitQName() calls
> that would be somewhat reduced in this case.

However, with Dom we would just need to re-create the qname when we need
it.  If we have it available, why not pass it along as well.

#interface #100

def startElement( self, (uri, name), (prefix,qname), attrs ):

or some variation of this....

Mike


> 
> So deciding all over again, 5 and 8 both look attractive.  As Greg says, 8's
> modes can make genericizing SAX handlers (say for filters) tricky.  But on the
> other hand, there would have to be a raft of conditionals for processing 5
> generically.
> 
> In the end, though, my leaning would be towards 5.
> 
> --
> Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
> uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +01 303 583 9900 x 101
> Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
> 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
> Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XML-SIG maillist  -  XML-SIG@python.org
> http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-sig

-- 
Mike Olson				 Principal Consultant
mike.olson@fourthought.com               (303)583-9900 x 102
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python