- From: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 16:01:15 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 03/10/2002 15:58:24 Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we need to consider the following questions...
>
> If a "standard" mapping from QName to URI is defined, ....
>
> 1) does it need to be unambiguous?
>
> 2) does it need to be reversible?
>
> 3) does it need to work with all legal namespace names, or is a subset
> enough?
>
> 4) should it allow URI references as mappings?
>
> 5) how will it treat namespace names in XML 1.1 (assuming that the extension
> to IRI references is there to stay).
>
> Some toughts:
>
> 1) Yes.
>
> 2) If it's not, it's of limited value in many cases, because you then can't
> round-trip the QName. Note that the mapping proposed in [2] does not have
> this property.
>
> 3) As namespace names can use *any* URI scheme, limiting the mapping only to
> some URI schemes seems to be problematic. However, if all URI schemes need
> to be handled, generating a URI in the same scheme as the namespace name
> simply won't work (because the URI scheme may not allow *any* kind of
> extension/concatenation).
>
> 4) If the namespace name already has a fragment identifier, adding another
> one isn't going to work, right?
>
> 5) This would require an unambiguous mapping from IRI references to URI
> references. Is that defined?
Yes.
Misha
> Julian
>
>
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6>
> [2] <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/24-tag-summary#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6>
>
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 11:04:58 UTC