- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:23:42 -0400
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, www-xkms@w3.org
Thanks, I'm forwarding this finding to the XKMS WG which has, and I presume will continue to, use QNames in identifiers: 6 Architectural Observations The TAG makes the following observations: Whatever the architectural ramifications of using QNames as identifiers in contexts other than XML element and attribute names, it is already established practice. It is simply not practical to suggest that this usage should be forbidden on architectural grounds. However, I am concerned with the last point. Elsewhere, the finding states that such usage adds additional constraints on XML processors. I do not think these constraints and their implications are well understood by the community. Consequently, while not prohibited, I think it should, for the time being, being discouraged absent a compelling reason (e.g., XPath and Schema) and clear understanding -- particularly if the only reason is that URIs seem too long. The complexity QNames in attribute values can cause for serialization is shown in [1]. [1] http://uddi.org/pubs/SchemaCentricCanonicalization-20020710.htm On Thursday 25 July 2002 04:21 pm, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > Joseph, > > In response to the issue you raised involving QNames [1] > (registered as TAG issue qnameAsId-18 [2]), the TAG has > published "Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in > Content" [3]. > > Thank you, > > - Ian > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Apr/0204 > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#qnameAsId-18 > [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 17:23:55 UTC