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

Re: A radical finding on Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 07:29:23 +0600
Message-ID: <013201c21f0c$923f8460$03aa7cca@lankabook2>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>

Hi Norm!

This would obviously work, but that would mean every XML application
that uses QNames in content would invent its own mechanism. WSDL too
uses the XSLT style of QNames in attributes as does WSFL, XLANG, ...
It would be really annoying to have to remember each language's
application namespace declaration mechanism, especially when you're
combining two or more of these in some setting (which is quite common).

How about introducing another standard mechanism ala xmlns to
define such parser-unaware namespace?

Bye,

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 9:55 PM
Subject: A radical finding on Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers
in Content


>
> Rick's message highlights a number of issues that may stem from
> erroneous preconceived notions about how qnames should work in XML
> documents.
>
> My mental model was that a general purpose processor that constructs a
> data model for a document should have all of the prefix/URI bindings
> necessary to interpret every qname in the document in the in-scope
> namespace declarations associated with the infoset for the document.
>
> That's the way XSLT works, for example. It uses real xmlns prefixes to
> interpret qnames in template names, xpath expressions, etc.
>
> Having considered Rick's message, I can see the following radical
alternative.
> (I'm not sure I support it, I'm just floating it for comment.)
>
> 1. Stipulate that xmlns declarations are *only* for bindings needed by
>    the parser. In other words, for qualified element and attribute names.
>
>    This gives the XML parser complete freedom to discard any namespace
>    binding that it does not need.
>
> 2. Since all qnames in attribute values and element content exist only
>    for some application to process (the parser can't see them),
>    stipulate that the application must provide some other mechanism
>    for associating prefixes and namespace names.
>
>    This puts those extra bindings into the content of the XML document
>    (or entirely out of band) in ways that no processor would consider
>    discarding.
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | A life, admirable at first sight, may have
> XML Standards Architect | cost so much in imposed liabilities, chores
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | and self-abasement, that, brilliant though it
>                         | appears, it cannot be considered other than a
>                         | failure. Another, which seems to have
>                         | misfired, is in reality a triumphant success,
>                         | because it has cost so little.--Henry De
>                         | Montherlant
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 21:31:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:32 UTC