Re: [xml] redicting parts of trees

[Rob Richards <rrichards ctindustries net>]

Kasimier Buchcik wrote:

> On the other side, if the missing declaration xmlns:b="urn:test:foo" was
> stored internally _somewhere_ instead, we would get:
>
>  - adopt some nodes with:
>      @node == <foo><b:bar/><foo/>, with b bound to "urn:test:foo"
>
>  - for every @node we will get:
>      <foo><b:bar/><foo/>
>      and a xmlns:b="urn:test:foo" stored internally on the document
>
>  - if added to the destination tree it could look like this.
>    <dest xmlns:b="urn:test:foo">
>      <foo><b:bar/><foo/>
>      <foo><b:bar/><foo/>
>      <foo><b:bar/><foo/>
>    </dest>
>
>    With bar->ns still referencing the stored xmlNs struct.
>
>  - if added to the tree a xmlReconciliateNs would attach bar->ns to
>    dest->nsDef, avoiding redundant declarations.
>
> So quite some less declarations.
>  
Ok, things became crystal after looking at your scenario. Think I got my 
head up my ass today as it took me forever to realize what you were saying.
That should work fine. As I mentioned before worst case a call to 
xmlReconciliateNs after calling the adopt function could fix up the data 
if for some reason it didnt integrate well with other functionality.

Rob