W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Revised namespaceState-48 finding (16 Dec 2005)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:23:33 -0600
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1134771813.21371.221.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 15:07 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Per my action from the 13 Dec 2005 TAG telcon, please find a revised
> finding on the issue of namespaceState-48 at
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState-2005-12-16.html

"The terms in a namespace are two-part identifiers consisting of a
namespace name (a URI) and a local name (an NCName as defined in [XML
Namespaces])."

Is that derived from existing specs? It seems to be a new constraint;
one that I'm not comfortable with.

According to the 'Identify with URI' good practice,
  http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-use-uris
they should be just URIs, like in RDF; for example,
the terms in the RDFS namespace are
 http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
 http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf
 http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertOf
etc.

That's the easiest way to satisfy the QName Mapping requirement.
 http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#qname-mapping

Namespaces that use tricky or unspecified mappings to URIs don't
lend themselves to cross-language use and shouldn't be encouraged,
let alone baked-in.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 22:23:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:47 UTC