- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:43:44 -0600
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 03:47, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes: > > > On Dec 3, 2003, at 7:48 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > > >> <?xml version="1.0"?> > >> <root xmlns:p="http://www.example.org/"> > >> <p:book> > >> <p:title>The Mill on the Floss</p:title> > >> <p:author> > >> <p:person p:title="Ms" p:given="George" p:family="Eliot"/> > >> </p:author> > >> </p:book> > >> </root> > >> > >> Now, just what Web Resource does the QName 'p:title' identify? > > > > None, because it is not a URI and there's not a canonical way of > > mapping it to a URI. > > So just to be sure we're on the same page, do you agree with DanC that > this means that the way in which XML 1.0 plus Namespaces makes use of > QNames is inconsistent with the principles of Web Architecture? Take care with quantifiers, please. Some uses of XML+Namespaces are consistent with web architecture, e.g. the way RDF maps qnames to URIs, and some are not, like the example above. XML+Namespaces overlaps with Web Architecture; some uses contribute to the Web of resources, some don't. The ones that don't aren't necessarily evil; they just don't participate in the network effects. > If so, isn't that a bit of an embarrassment, at least? No, just an issue to be aware of. > > ht -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 09:43:46 UTC