Re: Updated: issue qnameAsId-18

> 2) RDFCore has an outstanding issue to allow qnames as attribute values 
> as a shorthand for a URI REF.  This would mean that RDF would have 
> attributes which allowed either a URI or a qname in the same attribute 
> value.  Would RDF be consistent with this finding if it were to go ahead 
> and allow that.

That is a terrible idea.  Aside from the issue of mixing parser context
(the URI parser knows nothing about qnames and the XML parser can't
reliably peek into every element attribute looking for things that
might be qnames), there is also the extensibility of URI schemes that
must be considered.  Therefore, a qname must not be allowed anywhere
that a normal URI is expected.


Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 13:33:06 UTC