• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: "XML Developers' List" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:00:18 -0400 (EDT)

I have just heard a good argument for using the

  "{URIpart}localpart"

syntax for compound names rather than the

  "URIpart localpart"

I have always preferred the second format because it is easier to
split (most libraries have a built-in function for splitting around a
single character), but someone pointed out that the first format has
the advantage that you can tell simply by testing the first character
whether or not you have a compound name.  

Of course, Java will still be happier with the second, since String
operations in Java are painfully expensive.  What does everyone else
think?


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX2: Namespaces and syntax of compound names
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: SAX2: Namespaces and syntax of compound names
    • From: james anderson <James.Anderson@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSL Debate, Leventhal responds to Stephen Deach
• Next by Date: XML Schema errata (and digest question)
• Previous by thread: xml/edi
• Next by thread: Re: SAX2: Namespaces and syntax of compound names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread