W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2001

RE: QNames in attributes yet?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 09:48:28 +0300
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114BFD2@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: aswartz@upclink.com
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

That's *very* disappointing to hear.

Do you then consider the other changes in the revamped DTD to
be less backwards compatible? Since support for QNames already
must exist in RDF parsers, it would not require much effort to
extend that support to select attribute values, No? And the
benefits would be significant, and well worth the cost IMHO.

One of the most frequent complaints I hear about RDF serializations
(and often speak myself ;-) is the burdensome use of long URIs
to define RDF and RDF Schema instances. 

Yes, one can resort to ENTITY hacks as one form of relief, but I
think that the RDF serialization would be far more palatable to
the population at large if such a mechanism were adopted.

Complex instances and Schemas using controlled vocabularies are
a real pain to write (and read). 

Is adding support for QName attribute values really going to rock 
the boat that much?

What is the feeling of the RDF community about this, particularly
those implementing systems?



Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Software Technology Laboratory        Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center                 Video:  +358 3 356 0209 / 4227
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Aaron Swartz [mailto:aswartz@upclink.com]
> Sent: 20 September, 2001 08:09
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org; www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: QNames in attributes yet?
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2001, at 06:43  AM, 
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > Just wanted to inquire whether allowing QNames in attribute values
> > which presently take URI References is being seriously considered
> > in the revamped XML serialization.
> I do not think it is likely (however much I might like it) as it 
> would be a major backwards-incompatible change to the syntax and 
> doesn't seem to solve any serious issues.
> --
>        "Aaron Swartz"      |              The Semantic Web
>   <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long>
> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> |        i'm working to make it happen
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 02:48:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:32 UTC