W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: AWWW last call comments (4.5.5 qname mapping)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:03:17 +0200
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1080644597.1969.29.camel@localhost>

Dan, thanks for the heads-up, I'll gladly clarify any other of my
issues, for the current, see below.

> But then we looked at this one:
> 
> > 4.5.5 below the Good Practice: QName Mapping - the section (or some
> > other) should probably say more on the interaction of QName Mapping,
> > fragment identifiers in XML (4.5.8) commonly used for this mapping and
> > namespace documents (4.5.4)
> 
> and we didn't really know what to make of it.
> 
> Could you please elaborate or clarify?

Section 4.5.5 recommends that QNames used as identifiers must be
mappable to URIs. Most such mappings (all that I've seen) use fragment
IDs (relevant to 4.5.8) with the namespace URIs (relevant to 4.5.4) but
this interaction is shown nowhere in the Arch document.

I think the Arch document should describe this most common interaction.
It could say, for example, that it is (or is not) recommended that
mappings use fragment ID syntax (related to draft finding on Abstract
Component References) but that if fragment IDs are used, the language
should also recommend that suitable namespace documents are used.

It doesn't seem to warrant a whole section, but a paragraph or two (or
maybe a story) somewhere around 4.5.5 or 4.5.4 or 4.5.8 would be useful.

Hope it makes sense,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 06:03:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:31 GMT