• To: Alan Gutierrez <alan-xml-dev@e...>
• Subject: Null Namespace in SAX (was Re: Can we treat XML elementsand attributes as sets)
• From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>
• Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:39:36 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20050821131808.GC21010@m...>
• References: <20050821131808.GC21010@m...>
• Reply-to: lists@j...
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

>     In SAX, no namespace, or the default namespace, is represented
>     by the empty string. Closer to the set way of looking at things.

Actually, the use of null versus an empty string is very inconsistent in 
SAX. Karl Waclawek has reported many such areas across various 
callbacks-- but the variety of interpretation in implementations is more 
troublesome. Ultimately it leads to people sticking with one SAX parser 
(no switching) and checking the expected case, or checking both cases to 
remain parser agnostic...

All the best,
Jeff Rafter

• References:
  • Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
    • From: Alan Gutierrez <alan-xml-dev@e...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• Next by Date: RE: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• Previous by thread: Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• Next by thread: Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread