W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2005

Agenda request: forking QNames

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:53:32 +0000
To: public-xml-core-wg <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bmzknz2o3.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'd like to discuss a number of related topics stimulated by a thread [1]
on public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf regarding namespace declarations, qnames and
related issues.

Here's the latest entry in the thread:

From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Thread-Topic: CURIEs, xmlns and bandwidth
Subject: RE: CURIEs, xmlns and bandwidth

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.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0054.html
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDaKi9kjnJixAXWBoRApjiAJ4g//vOfoQKpcfROWMRBNeyXXmaoQCfVPkj
lI/xKvvvR7fJIqt+zlbUTrQ=
=k2B8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:53:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT