W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Rethinking QNames

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:48:56 -0500
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2zlu2e0mf.fsf@nwalsh.com>
From the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" department:

How catastrophic would it be if we reconsidered the definition of
QNames along the following lines:

1. Specify that the local part of a QName is NMTOKENS.

2. Specify that a QName x:y can be transformed into a URI by appending
   "y" to the URI associated with the prefix "x".

3. Specify that only a subset of QNames can be used as element and attribute
   names in XML because the local-part of an element or attirbute name
   must be an NCName.

One could go so far as to say that the prefix was also NMTOKENs, but I think
that would be going too far. I don't think we want 1:1 or 4:6 to become

I think we might also want to consider the slighly more complicated
rule that the local part of a QName can be NMTOKENS iff it has a
prefix; unprefixed QNames must still be NCNames. That way isbn:1234 is
a QName, but 4567 is not.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The art of being wise is the art of
http://nwalsh.com/            | knowing what to overlook.--William James

Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 14:49:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:39 UTC