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

Re: My action item on RDDL/RDF

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:31:10 +0000
To: "Anthony B. Coates" <abcoates@TheOffice.net>
cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <10217.1037197870@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>"Anthony B. Coates" said:
> Yet W3C XML Schemas don't seem to have a problem with using
> namespace prefixes in attribute values.  I've never understood why
> RDF cannot follow that lead. 

You mean RDF/XML, the syntax, not RDF the graph.

One reason is that RDF/XML was a recommendation several years before
W3C XML Schemas.  As I understand it, at that time (1997/1998), XML
Namespaces itself were seen as kind of a novelty, rather
controversial (still is to some xml-dev people) and I don't know if
it was ever suggested to use qnames in that way.

However, using qnames in attribute values is something the TAG has
been considering:

   Findings of the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG)
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings

   =>
   Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids

And makes several observations, one of which is:

  [[Using QNames in untyped (#PCDATA or xs:string) attribute values
  or element content places an additional burden on the processor
  that was not anticipated by [XML Namespaces].]] (ibid)

One thing I'd hope nobody did was mix and match using Qnames in
attribute values along with other identifiers.  That sounds like a
usability nightmare.

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 09:33:17 GMT

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