- From: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:38:42 +0200
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote: > >.... > > And thinking in terms of XML schema/infoset, the key thing we require is > that attributes have an associated namespace. I'm wondering whether that > is the right level of abstraction to capture the requirement. Right now > that means that prefix's must be used. But if XML were to change so that > there was another way to express namespaces for attributes, would it be > desirable if we were neutral to that change. > > Brian This seems an eminently sensible remark to make at this juncture: not to replicate modelling and notational considerations from the level below... and certainly not to adopt a syntactical convention that may be bypassed by more fundamental changes elsewhere. Can the whole namespace-attribute `decision' be reconstructed with Brian's reference to XML namespace tying? Or are we determined to be dogmatic about the actual syntax? Wouldn't that simplify our long search for consensus? -- Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com> Profium (former name Pro Solutions), Les Espaces de Sophia, Immeuble Delta, B.P. 037, F-06901 Sophia-Antipolis, France Tel. +33 (0)4.93.95.31.44 Fax. +33 (0)4.93.95.52.58 Mob. +33 (0)6.21.01.54.56 Internet: http://www.profium.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 07:38:37 UTC