W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2005

RE: CURIEs, xmlns and bandwidth

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:14:45 +0000
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bzmonz78q.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

[Coming late to this particular party, please cut me some slack]

Misha Wolf writes:

> What are the advantages of using xmlns declarations for CURIEs?  
> It is difficut to argue that this approach results in support by 
> existing tools, as one then has to face the possibility that some 
> of these tools will get indigestion when faced with CURIEs which 
> are not legal QNames.

> As xmlns and QNames are defined by the Namespaces in XML spec, and 
> as we're not adopting QNames, why should we use xmlns to declare 
> constructs which are not QNames?

Am I right in understanding from your examples that the (main?/only?)
reason for not adopting QNames is that you have a requirement to
support as-it-were-local-names which don't match the NCName
production, e.g. digit strings?

Are there any _other_ differences between
whatever-it-is-you're-calling-these-not-QNames and QNames?  In
particular, could you confirm that they _do_ share with QNames that
identity is checked on the expanded form, i.e. the pair of namespace
URI and 'local-name', not on the prefix:local-name form?


- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:15:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:19 UTC