[XML-SIG] SAX Namespaces

[tpassin@home.com]

Paul Prescod said - (does this look like a put-up-or-shut-up???  :) )

> I'm not sure what you are suggesting concretely. You and I agree that
> most of the current applications allow you to work based on the rawname
> or the URI/localname pair. Therefore we need three pieces of
> information. How do you suggest we should represent them?
> --
OK, I'll take a shot at it.

The DOM level 2 NS-specific calls want to see URI and localname.  We should
use a tuple (uri,localname).  Some of the NS calls also want to see a prefix
or a rawname (same as 'qualified name', as I understand it), and sometimes
both.  I propose that the rawname always be supplied, and the prefix always
be computed.  This seems to fit best the pattern of the DOM calls, and also
using DOM 1 calls with no namespaces.  Or in other words, I'm guessing :)
the prefix won't be needed as often as the rawname, so it is just as well to
compute it if needed.

So the name could be

A) A tuple, ((uri,localname),rawname),

B) an object with attributes for each of these things, or

C) a dictionary.

We've heard support for just about everything.  An object could be
attractive, since it could have methods to do all the mix-and match we want.
But it seems to me that the tuple - approach A - is the simplest.

The main thing is to agree whether the prefix (or rawname, or neither)
should be computed rather than included explicitly in the name.  From the
point of view of no redundance, the prefix should be included and the
rawname should be omitted.  But I think, as Paul suggested, that the
usefulness of the rawname says that it should be included instead of the
prefix.

So my vote is for A).

Paul, is this concrete enough?  :-) Have at it, blast away.

Cheers,

Tom Passin