Re: some more comments on XML Syntax (CURIEs)

Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> writes:
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 
> > * in 3.5 
> >       <Dog id="ns:taiko">
> >   is considered by many to be a bad design because it combines the xml
> >   namespace prefixes with the URI scheme names, with possibly confusing
> >   results.  Someday, the IETF might define a URI scheme called "ns", and
> >   then the software which used xmlns:ns wouldn't be able to use that
> >   scheme.  More likely, some vendor might start to deploy "xml" URIs
> >   which would cause unexpected conflicts with the reserved xml namespace
> >   prefix in some implementations.  Other people think this is a paranoid
> >   fantasy and that we shouldn't worry about it.
> > 
> >   (Or were you thinking the id would ONLY be a qname, and never a raw
> >   URI?   If so, that doesn't work because some URIs (like ones that end
> >   in "/") cannot be written as qnames.)
> 
> When I first raised this I was actually talking about CURIEs not qnames. 
> In the CURIE proposal [1] the suffix is any ifragment (a production 
> taken from the IRI spec) which can thus cope with cases like that.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/#s_syntax

Ah, good point, thanks for the clarification.

Which brings us back to the disjunction in the grandparent e-mail: are
folks suggesting the "id" attribute would *only* take CURIEs, or that it
would allow CURIEs and IRIs in the same field?  (Someone could refactor
the wiki page to enumerate these options....)  Note that the CURIE WD
says to use square brackets in this case.  [2]

      -- Sandro

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/#sec_4.2.

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 12:06:12 UTC