W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > June 2010

CURIEs / QNames

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:55:37 -0400
To: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009501cb0cb3$f62573c0$e2705b40$@osu.edu>
Thomas, I'm assuming this is the spec you were referring to?

http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/

I reviewed it briefly and I guess my reaction is that it seems to be
proposing something that's very much like QNames (in that it has the prefix
problem), but is definitely formally distinct.

As a personal matter, my inclination is to say this is a pretty terrible
idea, and seems to be perpetuating the problems that QNames created. But in
WG terms, we don't have a BP saying "avoid QNames in content" at the moment,
so there isn't any guidance on this right now.

I actually thought we did have a BP note on QNames, but I don't see one.
Maybe we should consider adding one, but I guess the question you're raising
is, should my proposal be expanded to address CURIEs or be limited to
QNames?

I don't have a ready answer, since I haven't encountered them before.
Offhand, I can't think of a major complication that would be introduced by
including them in the same proposal, because the part that matters is just
the prefix. If people think this has "legs", it's probably worth including.
 
-- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 17:56:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 June 2010 17:56:06 GMT