<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><head><style>p {margin:0px;padding:0px;} blockquote { border: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; }</style></head><body style="">
<p><font color="#000000" face="Verdana" size="2">+1 for a utility function that returns a (ns, local-name)-tuple.</font></p><p> </p><p>From an lxml.objectify-perspective, objectify stays easier to use if the number of element methods</p><p>remains "small" due to the fact that method and sub-element access use the same syntax. </p><p> </p><p>A pure python utility implementation would be instantly usable on ElementTree, too, wouldn' it?</p><p> </p><p>I for one do not like the smart string stuff too much. Doesn't this undermine ElementTree compatibility?</p><p>This is different for xpath, which ElementTree doesn't really support. </p><p>I'll admit this is gut-feeling comment, though.</p><p> </p><p>Holger </p><div class="signature"><br /><br /><br />-- <br />Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten <br />Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser</div></body></html>