So what you're saying is:

1) lock into Xerces serialzing and Xerces parsing ( for all clients )
2) downgrade to an old version of Xerces

there hopefully is a way to turn off the namespace behavior?  How does it
change the document?  Is there a way we could xslt it to clean it up??

fernando



On Thu, 16 May 2002, James Bates wrote:

> OK. I have a patch ready to commit that does away with TextWriter and 
> StringSerializer, and uses Xerces to serialize.
> 
> However, the serializer in xerces 2 is a bit over-zealous and inserts 
> namespace binding nodes for any what it considers to be "undeclared" 
> namespaces... And Xindice's DOM implementation's representation of namespace 
> binding nodes are unfortunately not compatible with Xerces' idea of such 
> nodes. (The real problem here is that DOM doesn't foresee them, and so 
> everyone has more or less their own idea for adding "attributes" representing 
> namespace binding nodes...)
> 
> Falling back to Xerces 1.4.4 fixes the problem (as 1.4.4 serializes only what 
> is explicitly present in the DOM). I can explain the details for those 
> interested if needed, but I want to keep this mail relatively short. 
> Bottom-line: my changes work only with the older Xerces 1.4.4, making them 
> largely undesirable (as one goal was to be independent of Xerces/XML parser 
> version).
> 
> On the plus side, this does allow me to introduce the notion of an output 
> encoding selection switch in the command-line tools for retrieving and 
> exporting documents in encodings other than UTF-8.
> 
> For example, the command
> 
>    xindiceadmin rd -c xmldb:xindice-rpc://localhost:4080/db/mycollection -n 
> somedoc.xml
>       -f mylocalfile.xml -z iso-8859-1
> 
> will write the result in latin 1, not utf-8. If the document contains 
> characters not representable in Latin-1, the serializer even writes escape 
> sequences (&#xZZZZ;) for them! Pretty cool :)
> 
> Anyway, in view of the possible problems, again I'm wondering whether to go 
> ahead and commit, or maybe have a more serious think about all this first?
> 
> James
> 
> 

Reply via email to