[XML-SIG] SAX namespaces discussion status

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Paul listed four alternatives (the fifth seems to be identical with
| #4). Here is my, slightly modified, version of that list. The qname or
| prefix discussion we can leave for later, since it is really
| orthogonal to the name representation issue.
|
| [...list snipped...]

* Uche Ogbuji
| 
| There's one axis you left out: qname versus prefix.  

Yes.  If you read my last sentence above you will see why. :-)
 
| 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.

OK.  I am 100% agnostic on this one, and chose qname because that was
what Java SAX did.  I agree that what is usually wanted is the prefix,
so I wouldn't be against changing it.  However, I would like to check
the arguments from the xml-dev discussions first.  Will try do to so.
 
| 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.

What are you thinking about when you say 'a raft of conditionals'?

--Lars M.