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

RE: CURIEs, xmlns and bandwidth

From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:39:38 +0000
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Cc: iptc-metadata@yahoogroups.com
Message-id: <A29ADE959C70A1449470AA9A212F5D808B2DC6@LONSMSXM06.emea.ime.reuters.com>

Henry wrote:

> 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?

Yes, this is the main reason.

There is, though, a significant bonus resulting from not using 
QNames, in that we then do not have to use the xmlns declaration 
syntax.  This allows us to XInclude the declarations, rather 
than carry them in every headline.

> 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?


Misha Wolf
News Standards Manager, Reuters, www.reuters.com
Vice-Chair, News Architecture Working Party, IPTC, www.iptc.org/dev

To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:39:30 UTC

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