On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:03:02 -0600, Brian Aberle wrote:
> You said,
>> You do realize that this means "this is not XML"?
>>
>> You can't even guarantee attribute order in SAX. Suggesting that
>> attribute order matters is pretty baffling, altogether.
>
> While Reading via SAX the attribute order will be detectable.
No. They. Won't.
See: http://www.saxproject.org/apidoc/org/xml/sax/Attributes.html
"The order of attributes in the list is unspecified, and will vary from
implementation to implementation."
See also:
http://www.saxproject.org/apidoc/org/xml/sax/ContentHandler.html#startElement(java.lang.String,%20java.lang.String,%20java.lang.String,%20org.xml.sax.Attributes)
> While
> Writing via SAX - I don't know, does that depend on parser
> implementation? Can anyone answer this? It could conceptually be XML
> 2.0(100% backward compatible), or it could conceptually be "a
> protocol", this is mostly a matter of view.
I do not understand why you insist that it must be the first attribute,
anyway. Just treat it specially. The collection of attributes is
well-represented by an abstraction (in any programming language) that
represents a set or a map, though the possibility of namespaced
attributes complicates the construction of the key.
For your specific purpose, I cannot see why you don't just define
ba:oid (where xmlns:ba="uri:something-that-you-own") and done. Then the
specialized faster processing can check whether there's a ba:oid
attribute on a particular element (or subtree) and treat it
appropriately. Nothing terribly exciting to see, there.
No doubt I'm missing something. :-)
Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com
And now someone's on the telephone, desperate in his pain;
someone's on the bathroom floor, doing her cocaine;
someone's got his finger on the button in some room--
no one can convince me we aren't gluttons for our doom.
-- Indigo Girls
