W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: XML Syntax: Attributes

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:12:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080828.091239.143277450.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

This sounds like a good idea to me.

peter



From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: XML Syntax: Attributes
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:36:16 +0100

> 
> I propose that we put the attributes into "no namespace" rather than
> into whatever namespace we pick.
> 
> Rationale: Unprefixed attributes do not inherit the default
> namespace. This is a deliberate design decision of XML namespaces. The
> idea is that bare attribute names which are *only* used in a specific
> vocabulary are sufficiently disambiguated by their parent
> element. Attributes that are intended to *cross* vocabularies (such as
> xml:lang or xlink attributes) *are* encouraged to be put into a
> namespace (for obvious reasons).
> 
> The advantage of keeping the attributes namespaceless is that, with a
> default namespace declaration, OWL/XML will not need *any* prefixes for
> elements and attributes. Frankly, this is a huge authoring and reading
> win. It also means one can *just* use QNames for uri abbreviation
> (assuming we allow QNames in attribute content...subject of a future
> post!).
> 
> My understanding is that no namespace attributes are the preferred
> design in this case anyway. We don't intend for these attributes to be
> used anywhere but in our vocabulary and it's pretty clear that no one
> would want them :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 13:15:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 August 2008 13:15:43 GMT