No, you can either use the DOMPrint sample provided with the source or write
your own
"serializer". I believe the Java API has a built-in serializer.
Keyur Dalal
- Original Message -
From: "Arun Ramdas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tu
havior that I'm experiencing
- is there an error my
source xml/xsd/cpp? Or is this a known bug in
Xerces?
BTW, if I use the following
DOMParser:
DOMParser parser;
parser.parse("test.xml",
false); DOM_Document doc =
parser.getDocument();
Calling getNodeName() on any node exhibits the
expected behavior...
Regards,
Keyur Dalal
> When you serialize the document out to XML syntax, it is the serializer's
> responsibility to recognize this situation and automagically create any
> namespace declaration attributes which may be required.
>
> So if anything, this is easier for you than it would be using the old
> calls.
But i
RI values
are
> not.
>
> If all you're doing is creating a DOM, then immediately serializing it,
the
> difference may not be obvious. But since you said you needed to create a
> "namespace-aware" DOM, then you _have_ to use createElementNS() and
> createAttributeNS().
>
I did not know that the non-NS API were at one point considered for
deprecation.
Given that - there is no question on which one I will use.
My problems with the NS API are minor : 'xmlns' attributes can only belong
to one
explicit namespace, but I still have to mention which one it happens to be.
DOM API: to NS or not to NS?
>
> If you want to create a document with the correct namespaces, you must use
> createElementNS and createAttributeNS. Isn't that obvious from their
names
> and the DOM recommendation?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
I need to create the following namespace aware XML
document:
enUS
someuser
If I use the DOM API to generate element nodes and append
attributes, what advantages are there in using
createElementNS
and createAttributeNS over createElement and createAttribute?
Regards,
Try:
DOM_Node node = static_cast( nl.item( actionNum ) );
Keyur
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Jesso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: compatibilty
> I tried the const thing, but I get the same error.
>
> When I wrot
