commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32360] - [jxpath] Default Namespace not handled correctly
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:45:24 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32360>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32360





------- Additional Comments From runger@cim.mcgill.ca  2005-11-02 17:45 -------
I'm not sure how to make Elliott happy:

As far as I can tell, his standpoint is a dogmatic one. The XPath 1.0 Specs
define a certain level of functionality, therefore JXPath has to implement
exactly that functionality, no more and no less.

My standpoint is more liberal: since there is a need for a certain feature, and
(at least to some people) it make sense to have this feature, lets implement it!
Spec conformance is the default behaviour, but the software can do more.

I think there are good arguments for both sides of the issue.

In the end I like to decide things from a technical standpoint:

- if someone could point out a real problem with the feature then I would change
my mind.
- however, I don't think there can be a problem, since treating the default
namespace the same as all the others is, in a way, a more natural way of
thinking about it -> any namespace can be assigned any prefix, with the
exception of 'xml' and 'xmlns', etc... which have fixed mappings. The default
'mapping' maps 'xml'->XML Namespace, 'xmlns'->Namespaces Namespace, and ''->no
namespace. This would be the normal, default XPath 1.0 behaviour. Providing a
function to change the '' mapping is somehow natural.

For me the deciding factors would be the following:
1) XPath 2.0 includes the feature
2) The implementation is clean and backwards compatible
3) It introduces no 'errors' other than the break with the 1.0 spec ONLY when
the feature is used.

Given these criteria are met I would leave the feature in.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message