W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Which QName?

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:36:16 +0200
Message-ID: <3F3FAF00.1010200@expway.fr>
To: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>

james anderson wrote:
> On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 15:23 Europe/Berlin, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> The qnameAsId-18 states that "using the in-scope namespace bindings 
>> has the advantage that it theoretically allows a generic processor to 
>> interpret QNames in content without having to be aware of any 
>> application-specific mechanisms".
>> That, unfortunately, is very theoretical.
> it may be insufficiently specified, but it is neither theoretical nor 
> hypothetical. the namespaces recommendation specifies two scoping rules, 
> those referred to below as the  "attributes rule" and the "element 
> rule".

The finding states that a generic processor may interpret QiC without 
application-specific mechanisms. If it doesn't know which of the attribute or 
element rules was used, that ability of generic processors is very much theoretical.

> there is no need for a decision as to which is the best option. 

I never said that. Only that at the least specification writers ought to be 
aware of which rules they want to see applied, instead of the "just use QiC" 
hand-waving one sees. That is all.

> why does one mode need to be "the" mode?

On a global scale, no; within a spec, yes. And there is a need for guidelines to 
help people chose wisely.

Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway        http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 12:36:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC