- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 21:28:38 +0100
- To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <www-tag@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Norman Walsh > > / Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net> was heard to say: > | Again, that's making assumptions about implementations. If an > | XML parser can do it for elements and attributes, what's > | distinct about attribute values? > > Attribute values can contain arbitrary strings. XML element > and attribute names occur at precisely defined and > unambiguous locations in the grammar. > Given: > > <a:foo b:bar="some text: what about this:is it valid?"/> > > the parse knows that a:foo is an element name, b:bar is an > attribute name, and "some text: what about this:is it valid?" > is an attribute value. What it can't reasonably be expected > to know (IMHO) is whether or not this:is is a QName or not. Doesn't that depend on whether there is a scoping namespace with the appropriate namespace prefix (or even if 'namespacing' is turned on in the parser)? > | XML > | Schema might have issues if someone ever registers the xsd: URI > | scheme, and indeed weird things might happen in the > processing chain > | soon enough if people use urn: et al as a namespace prefix. > > No, I don't think either of those situations will cause any > problems. <urn:foo xmlns:urn="http://example.com/" > href="urn:publicid:foo:bar:en"/> is entirely unambiguous. Thanks for the clarification, and if there is an entirely ambiguous situation, my apologies for the runaround; perhaps then it needs to be dealt with or at least acknowledged, by a next iteration of XML namespaces? Bill de hÓra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPQEXdOaWiFwg2CH4EQJeqwCeIa+OVut1GimcC4R2QYfewiNh0jMAoO/z yZ7f9mkeykz8/UVwkZiDDwth =P/X4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 16:30:59 UTC