W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Updated: issue qnameAsId-18

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:04:08 +0300
To: ext Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, WWW TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B9255498.163FD%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2002-06-06 17:50, "ext Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM> wrote:

> 
> / Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> was heard to say:
> | If RDF decides to allow qnames in attribute values or data content, it's
> | not an XML issue, since the end result is only URIs, not qnames, and the
> | parsing is done by an RDF parser, not just a generic XML parser (even if
> | the latter is imployed at some level).
> 
> Well, maybe. I've seen proposals in, for example, the XML Query WG
> that suggested the data model might discard "unnecessary" namespace
> prefixes. If the tool that constructs the data model doesn't recognize
> your use of the foo: prefix, the xmlns:foo declaration may not have
> survived.
> 
>                                       Be seeing you,
>                                         norm

I guess it all boils down to the behavior of the RDF
parser. If it fails to map some rdf:resourceQ="foo:bar" to
a full URI, then it should complain very loudly and probably
bail.

If the RDF parser is using some XML parser sub-component that
discards "unnecessary" prefixes, then that's not a suitable
component for an RDF parser.

Of course, if that becomes the behavior of all XML parsers,
then writing an RDF parser will just be that much more work
and the end solution that much less modular...

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 11:00:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC