W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2012

[Bug 15399] [XP3.0] Conflict between EQName syntax and JSON

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:22:29 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RsL9p-0002Fp-Vu@jessica.w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15399

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> 2012-01-31 21:22:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The main disadvantage being it's another unknown unfamiliar syntax, rather than
> actually reusing the de-facto standard for expressing expanded QNames.

As opposed to being *almost* the same as an existing syntax, and having two
different ways to represent a URI literal in the same language ;->

Pure Clark notation won't parse in our grammar. We're going to have to modify
it somehow. We may as well do it in a way that leverages the existing design of
our language.

I also think my proposed syntax is clear about whitespace handling. Anyone who
knows XQuery knows what whitespace is in the URI for the following QName:

Q{ "http://example.com/gratia":lpart }

We can define the whitespace rules for the following syntax, but whatever
definition we choose, it's one more thing to learn:

Q{ http://example.com/gratia }lpart

Should the above constant be allowed? If so, what whitespace does the URI
contain?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 21:22:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:48 UTC