[jdom-interest] Re: First pass at Namespace revision[eg] (Jason Hunter)

Jason Hunter jhunter at collab.net
Fri Mar 30 10:52:04 PST 2001

"Rosen, Alex" wrote:
> Do you have a pointer to this discussion, so we can read up on it? (i.e. I
> wonder if it's time to revisit this decision, so the API is less surprising to
> people?)

I don't, it was from last fall.  I'd very much resist trying to go back
in time to make JDOM treat namespaces like the textual representation,
where you look up the tree to determine your namespace and your
namespace depends on the elt position in the tree.  It's not correct
semantically as Elliotte argues, plus it makes the use case for moving
elements and combining trees just lousy.  A <table> with an XHTML
namespace URI and empty string prefix should keep its namespace URI and
not have it change because it was added to a parent with a different
empty string prefix.  This moving of elts is something the text
representation doesn't have to deal with!


More information about the jdom-interest mailing list