Re: [Finding] Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content

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