- From: HOLLANDER,DAVE (HP-FtCollins,ex1) <dave_hollander@am.exch.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:27:43 -0600
- To: "'caro@Adobe.COM'" <caro@Adobe.COM>, rdf-dev@mailbase.ac.uk, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
Hello, I fail to see the conflict. On Tuesday, July 20, 1999 Perry writes: > It's this business about concatanating that worries me. The XML namespace > spec never mentions concatanation as a valid mechanism. Indeed, the > non-normative appendices seem to imply that the expansion of > qualified names should be treated as ordered pairs. > How we consider the expansion for definition is much different than algorithms for processing. There is no limitation on how the namespace information is to be processed. > ... > Which is right? Am I reading too much into Appendix A.3? Yes. > Is the > concatanation mechanism suggested by RDF (and WebDAV, for that matter), a > deviation from the XML namespace spec? No, not only is A3 non-normative, it does not describe processing. The only issue that I see is the fact that concatenation loses information, as your example shows. I this case the loss of the identity of the parts that made up the URI. This does not seem to be a problem since the purpose is to identify a web object, but I leave that to the experts in the RDF to decide. Dave Hollander Co-chair, XML Schema Working Group ---------------------------------------------------------------------- email - mailto:w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org archive - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/ homepage - http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Schemas.html Working Drafts - http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 1999 11:28:00 UTC