[XML-SIG] SAX Namespaces

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| I would prefer replacing the tuple with the qname.  Any code that
| looks at the internal structure of names for (uri, localname) will
| assume namespace processing anyway, methinks.  If anyone can think of
| convincing use cases that are made awkward by the string
| representation I will reconsider.

* Greg Stein
| 
| As long as you're saying it is ((uri, localname), qname) or (qname,
| qname), then I'm fine with that.

Actually, I was thinking (uri, localname) or qname. (I was talking
about #1., not #2, using Paul's numbers.)

| In either case value[0] is the "name" of the item.

This is a good point. If we go for Paul's #2 we have two choices
(let's call them #2a and #2b):

  #2a: namespaces on:  startElement(self, ((uri, local), qname), attrs)
       namespaces off: startElement(self, (qname, qname), attrs)

  #2b: namespaces on:  startElement(self, ((uri, local), qname), attrs)
       namespaces off: startElement(self, qname, attrs)

#2a is troublesome because it's ugly in non-namespace mode and has the
exact same problem as my #1 in non-namespace mode: it forces namespace
awareness on the poor novice.

#2b is troublesome because it means that you have to act differently
to get the true name depending on whether namespaces are on or off.

To me this makes #2b very close to unacceptable. 

#2a seems to me to be inferior to #1 at first glance.  The final qname
in the outer tuple seems better off as a separate parameter than stuck
inside that tuple.  Of course, this leaves the question of how we
represent attributes.  In my opinion we could go for #1 and still use
some variant of Paul's attribute lists.  The question is just which
one:

  i)   [((URI, localname, qname), value), ...] 
  ii)  [(((URI, localname), qname), value), ...] 
  iii) [((URI, localname), qname, value), ...] 
  iv)  {(URI, localname) : (qname, value), ...}
  v)   ({(URI, localname) : value, ...}, {qname : (URI, localname), ...})

More ideas? Opinions? Does it really matter what we choose here, if we
are going to have a convenience wrapper class anyway?

--Lars M.