- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:14:45 +0000
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Coming late to this particular party, please cut me some slack] Misha Wolf writes: > What are the advantages of using xmlns declarations for CURIEs? > It is difficut to argue that this approach results in support by > existing tools, as one then has to face the possibility that some > of these tools will get indigestion when faced with CURIEs which > are not legal QNames. > As xmlns and QNames are defined by the Namespaces in XML spec, and > as we're not adopting QNames, why should we use xmlns to declare > constructs which are not QNames? Am I right in understanding from your examples that the (main?/only?) reason for not adopting QNames is that you have a requirement to support as-it-were-local-names which don't match the NCName production, e.g. digit strings? Are there any _other_ differences between whatever-it-is-you're-calling-these-not-QNames and QNames? In particular, could you confirm that they _do_ share with QNames that identity is checked on the expanded form, i.e. the pair of namespace URI and 'local-name', not on the prefix:local-name form? Thanks, ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDaJGWkjnJixAXWBoRAjzBAJ9mBRNT1AIeKYSwdjv7gnVuJX6yHQCfbIJA EKBr+Hq5cgyperJlK/M9rZw= =wQ5A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:15:03 UTC