- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:31:10 +0000
- To: "Anthony B. Coates" <abcoates@TheOffice.net>
- cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
>>>"Anthony B. Coates" said: > Yet W3C XML Schemas don't seem to have a problem with using > namespace prefixes in attribute values. I've never understood why > RDF cannot follow that lead. You mean RDF/XML, the syntax, not RDF the graph. One reason is that RDF/XML was a recommendation several years before W3C XML Schemas. As I understand it, at that time (1997/1998), XML Namespaces itself were seen as kind of a novelty, rather controversial (still is to some xml-dev people) and I don't know if it was ever suggested to use qnames in that way. However, using qnames in attribute values is something the TAG has been considering: Findings of the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings => Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids And makes several observations, one of which is: [[Using QNames in untyped (#PCDATA or xs:string) attribute values or element content places an additional burden on the processor that was not anticipated by [XML Namespaces].]] (ibid) One thing I'd hope nobody did was mix and match using Qnames in attribute values along with other identifiers. That sounds like a usability nightmare. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 09:33:17 UTC