W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

comments on xmlns() scheme

From: Vun Kannon, David <dvunkannon@kpmg.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:27:34 -0500
Message-Id: <53A3C10BA714D511BA9300805FA7FB2A05112B6D@usmnyexc05.us.kworld.kpmg.com>
To: "'www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>

How should the xmlns() scheme be used to specify the default namespace?

XBRL taxonomy linkbases contain XLink extended links. These linkbases may
contain thousands of locators whose xlink:href attributes point to specific
elements in specific namespaces. My reading of the XPointer drafts is that
they would require the repetition of the xmlns() scheme part in every href
in the file.

I think it is unfortunate that the XPointer drafts are XML Namespace and XML
Schema aware enough to see a problem, but not aware enough to reuse the
devices of those specifications, choosing instead to reinvent them.
Namespace prefix resolution is well handled through the xmlns: attributes.
All XPointer has to do to leverage this work is to state that the semantics
of a QName in XPointer content be resolved using these mechanisms, exactly
as element and attribute names are.

This proposal would eliminate the need to restate the xmlns mapping in every
XPointer, which will bloat many forms of namespace aware documents. It would
also make my first question easy to answer.

Cheers,
David vun Kannon
Chair, XBRL Specification Working Group
*****************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized. 

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.         
*****************************************************************************
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 13:27:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:44 GMT