- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:06:06 +0100
- To: "'Misha Wolf'" <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi Misha, > What are the advantages of using xmlns declarations for CURIEs? None, really. It was simply that we began with QNames and then evolved from that. > 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? Sure...and going that route would allow you to add some additional cunning features. Also, in many of the contexts that I have referred to as 'existing practice' there are no namespaces anyway (software configuration files, Wiki shortcuts, and so on). Following on from your comments then, perhaps we should just say that CURIEs are a datatype, but not say anything about where the actual substitutions come from, and let the host language or software context decide that. (So XHTML 2 might choose namespace prefixes, but NewsML might choose some other way.) Any thoughts on that? Regards, Mark Mark Birbeck CEO x-port.net Ltd. e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ Download our XForms processor from http://www.formsPlayer.com/
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2005 13:06:35 UTC