Re: Updated: issue qnameAsId-18

Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 10:10, Brian McBride wrote:
> [...]
> > 2) RDFCore has an outstanding issue to allow qnames as attribute values
as
> > a shorthand for a URI REF.  This would mean that RDF would have
attributes
> > which allowed either a URI or a qname in the same attribute value.
>
>
> I don't expect so.
>
> Rather, RDF would have one resource="..uri ref here..."
> attribute, and one rdf:resourceQ="...qname here..." attribute.

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of having distinct resourceQ, aboutQ
attributes.

Regarding the qnameAsId issue, which is now water over the dam as XSLT/XPath
has become widespread and successful, I would prefer incorporating language
acknowledging XPath's use of qnames, which goes beyond xs:Qname, e.g.

"Use of QNames within attribute content may be signalled by a regular
expression defined type such as [ex:QNameTokens]. When used in this fashion,
an implicit or explicit namespace context must exist within which namespace
prefixes are bound to namespace URIs. "

Ideally the regular expression which is used to define a QName containing
string would have been defined by XML Schema as a builtin type, but this
issue wasn't apparently apparent at the time :-/

Jonathan