W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: [Finding] Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Co ntent

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:32:47 -0700
Message-ID: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F405869B44@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
To: "'reagle@w3.org'" <reagle@w3.org>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, www-xkms@w3.org

I do not believe that the UDDI schema centric C18N is relevant to the QNAME
point.

The issue with the schema centric C18N is in my view quite different and is
due to the particular way in which .NET manages XML data which attempts to
require as little effort as possible on behalf of the programmer.

If one is using a programming framework which supports metadata (i.e. Open
Genera and .NET) you are going to want to build your XML serialization code
using reflection, you certainly do not want to put an additional burden on
the user of requiring them to annotate their data structures to state which
prefix to use for a namespace.

Another area where the need for schema centric C18N is very clear is in the
composition of XML documents from fragments generated independently.


Finaly I read the architecture board's statement quite differently, they
state that they are not going to consider change on that particular topic as
the legacy usage is significant. I read that as stating that they have not
engaged in a comprehensive examination of the issue because it is moot.


		Phill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 5:24 PM
> To: Ian B. Jacobs
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org; www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Finding] Using Qualified Names (QNames) as 
> Identifiers in
> Content
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I'm forwarding this finding to the XKMS WG which has, 
> and I presume 
> will continue to, use QNames in identifiers:
>   6 Architectural Observations
>   The TAG makes the following observations:
>   Whatever the architectural ramifications of using QNames as 
>   identifiers in contexts other than XML element and attribute names,
>   it is already established practice.
>   It is simply not practical to suggest that this usage should be 
>   forbidden on architectural grounds.
> 
> However, I am concerned with the last point. Elsewhere, the 
> finding states  
> that such usage adds additional constraints on XML 
> processors. I do not 
> think these constraints and their implications are well 
> understood by the 
> community. Consequently, while not prohibited, I think it 
> should, for the 
> time being, being discouraged absent a compelling reason 
> (e.g., XPath and 
> Schema) and clear understanding -- particularly if the only 
> reason is that 
> URIs seem too long. The complexity QNames in attribute values 
> can cause for 
> serialization is shown in [1].
> 
> [1] http://uddi.org/pubs/SchemaCentricCanonicalization-20020710.htm
> 
> On Thursday 25 July 2002 04:21 pm, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> > Joseph,
> >
> > In response to the issue you raised involving QNames [1]
> > (registered as TAG issue qnameAsId-18 [2]), the TAG has
> > published "Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in
> > Content" [3].
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >   - Ian
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Apr/0204
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#qnameAsId-18
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids
> 
> -- 
> 
> Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
> W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
> IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
> W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
> 
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 13:31:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT