- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:13:05 -0500
- To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, XML Query Comments <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
I've forwarded this to our Working Groups for discussion. We're not likely to discuss it before at least some time in January. Watch this space. Jonathan Elliotte Harold wrote: > Michael Kay wrote: > >> The XQuery specification, incidentally, defines a mapping of error >> QNames to >> error URIs. It's different from this one, of course. > > > The error URIs in the XQuery spec look like this: > > http://www.w3.org/2004/10/xqt-errors#XPST0017 > > Something similar has been tried before in XML digital signatures and > RDF. For reasons elucidated in the draft proposal, this format is not > suitable for all QNames and does not work as a generic mechanism for > encoding Qnames as URIs. > > The XQuery format also seem to suffer from the disease that everything > must be an http URI even when, as in this case, the URI is not actually > resolvable. (http://www.w3.org/2004/10/xqt-errors is a real page but the > fragment ID doesn't point to anything.) > > I agree with most of your concerns about the details of the proposed > qname URN scheme (IRIs vs. URIs, percent encoding, etc.) but at a > fundamental level I think the proposed scheme is better than what XQuery > is proposing. I would suggest that XQuery adopt the new qname URN scheme > rather than using http URIs to identify error codes. In fact, I'll cc > this to the XQuery working group to register it as a formal comment. >
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 16:13:17 UTC