rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6

Hi,

I think we need to consider the following questions...

 If a "standard" mapping from QName to URI is defined, ....

1) does it need to be unambiguous?

2) does it need to be reversible?

3) does it need to work with all legal namespace names, or is a subset
enough?

4) should it allow URI references as mappings?

5) how will it treat namespace names in XML 1.1 (assuming that the extension
to IRI references is there to stay).

Some toughts:

1) Yes.

2) If it's not, it's of limited value in many cases, because you then can't
round-trip the QName. Note that the mapping proposed in [2] does not have
this property.

3) As namespace names can use *any* URI scheme, limiting the mapping only to
some URI schemes seems to be problematic. However, if all URI schemes need
to be handled, generating a URI in the same scheme as the namespace name
simply won't work (because the URI scheme may not allow *any* kind of
extension/concatenation).

4) If the namespace name already has a fragment identifier, adding another
one isn't going to work, right?

5) This would require an unambiguous mapping from IRI references to URI
references. Is that defined?

Julian


[1] <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/24-tag-summary#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6>

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760