- 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
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? No. > 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? Indeed. 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