W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2003

RE: XML Enriched N-Triples (XENT)

From: <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:05:42 -0000
Message-Id: <200306182005.h5IK5g0U023199@web170.megawebservers.com>
To: (wrong string) Óra'" <dehora@eircom.net>, "'Sean B. Palmer'" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>



Sorry to be so slow in responding, but I'm officially "on vacation"
at Lake Tahoe, & doing email is a little awkward here.

Just one observation -- all of the attempts to improve readability have
used the same strategy: replacing *long* names by *short* names.
That strategy takes into account the fact that humans can only absorb 
so much at one time, and *shorter is better*.

Dick McCullough
-------
Jimmy Cerra <jimbobbs@hotmail.com> said:

> 
> > > The TAG finding says that parsing costs of QNames in PCDATA may be
> > > high. I've proved that, for Python and SAX and least, the opposite
> is
> > > true.
> > 
> > Agreed. And Qnames in element content have  higher cost (imo).
> 
> What about QNames in attribute values?  What's the cost for that like?
> I'm considering using a QName-like [1] syntax for the design of a markup
> language (in progress).
> 
> --
> Jimmy Cerra
> 
> ] "I have learned these days, never to limit
> ]  anyone else due to my own limited
> ]  imagination." - Dr. Mae C. Jemison
> 
> [1] I don't want to use Qualified Names, as they are, because the syntax
> of a QName may be confused with that of an URI.
> 



-- 
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 16:05:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:59 GMT