W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > October 2005

RE: CURIEs, xmlns and bandwidth

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:06:06 +0100
Message-ID: <95F9EBA3-B572-4767-8ECF-28DFE42BBA8C@s15.mail.x-port.net>
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

> 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

Any thoughts on that?



Mark Birbeck
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
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2005 13:06:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:45 UTC