Re: xml syntax issues

Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> writes:
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > In case we get to the XML Syntax discussion in the meeting, I've put
> > together a list of "coin-flip" [1] decisions that have to be made here (8
> > of them as of this writing, although there are some subsidiary
> > decisions).
> > 
> >    http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax
> > 
> > My expectation is for this page to evolve in place, to have resolved
> > details along with any remaining issues.
> > 
> > Feel free to add attributed comments to the page (you'll see some from
> > me -- they start with "SandroHawke") or reply to this e-mail.
> 
> Thanks, I've annotated the page with my (mild) preferences.

Great, thanks!

> There was one other issue I nearly added but then thought perhaps it 
> doesn't quality as a coin flip (though it's not exactly a deep issue 
> either) - whether we allow curie syntax for IRIs.
> 
> Use of full IRIs (other than ones relative to the xml:base) does make 
> the syntax particularly unreadable (people do need to sometimes be able 
> to look at the serialization).
> 
>    <Dog iri="http://hawke.org/2005/Taiko">
> 
> CURIEs (qname-like syntax for defining a URI/IRI) help a bit:
> 
>    <Dog iri="[ns:taiko]">
> or
>    <Dog curie="ns:taiko">
> 
> On the other hand people can always use XML entity references to 
> abbreviate IRIs, not fantastically readable either but equally short:
> 
>    <Dog iri="&ns;taiko">
> 
> I think I'm inclined towards the simplest case of not having CURIEs in 
> the XML. However, I do think we want CURIEs in the linear ("human 
> readable") syntax so it's reasonable to at least consider whether they 
> should also go in the XML.

I've added it to the page.  I think it belongs there, I just forgot
about it.
 
    -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2007 13:35:24 UTC