W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > June 2000

Re: XML 1.0 in flux

From: Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20000603163219.28255.qmail@web3005.mail.yahoo.com>
To: abrahams@acm.org, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
[ paul abrahams writes:]
> Personally, I'd like to see namespaces rolled into the XML spec
> itself rather than existing in a separate document.  Among other 
> things, that would enable us to avoid the confusing definition of a 
> Qname, which may or may not have a qualifier (a different example of 
> something that quacks like a duck but isn't a duck).  We could then 
> just use "name", with perhaps a "historical note" explaining the 
> previous use of the term Qname for those who hadn't heard the news.

This sounds like XML 2.0 to me (if anyting).

As I understand, the proposal is to replace the XML production:

    [5]  Name ::=  (Letter | '_' | ':') (NameChar)*

with the Namespaces production:

    [6]  QName ::=  (Prefix ':')? LocalPart


    [8]  LocalPart ::=  NCName
    [4]  NCName ::=  (Letter | '_') (NCNameChar)*

Syntactically, this has the potential to break existing documents,
since XML 1.0 permits multiple colon characters, hence could be
characterized as morally problematic. (Of course, a careful reader of
the XML 1.0 spec would have avoided using namespaces in content
entirely, given that the recommendation states: <quote>authors should
not use the colon in XML names except as part of name-space
experiments</quote>, which mitigates the moral aspect.)

Semantically, I'm not sure that all authors of XML would wish to adopt
the Prefix/LocalPart dichotomy. Given our discussions so far...


<? "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations ?>

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2000 12:32:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:43 UTC