- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:44:36 -0400
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
On Friday 06 September 2002 02:31 pm, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webarch-20020830/ > This is an example of the confusion between the identifier and a > reference. This confusion is really exacerbated by this awful term > "absolute URI reference" for > the identifier! > > A QName is a perfectly good reference to something which is > identified by a URI. The QName isn't itself a URI, just as a relative > reference a not a URI. Ah, this makes a lot of sense to me when you put it that way. But it's not exactly what the TAG finding says... Let's consider the following bit of XML and the QName: o. <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string"> o. The QName xsd:string is a reference to "something" (a type) o. The TAG finding says this is a "concise, unambiguous name for the URI/local-name pair" {" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema", "string"} o You are saying it is a reference to an identifier, and the TAG finding does speak to this too, "Other specifications use QNames as shortcuts for unique identifiers derived from a URI/local-name pair that have no relationship to element or attribute types." However, in this case could you please indicate the actual identifier? Or has Schema WG not yet provided it? Should they? If WGs use QNames as identifiers, do they still have an obligation to create the identifier under some QName -> Identifier translation?
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 12:44:49 UTC