- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:23:33 -0600
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 15:07 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote: > Per my action from the 13 Dec 2005 TAG telcon, please find a revised > finding on the issue of namespaceState-48 at > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState-2005-12-16.html "The terms in a namespace are two-part identifiers consisting of a namespace name (a URI) and a local name (an NCName as defined in [XML Namespaces])." Is that derived from existing specs? It seems to be a new constraint; one that I'm not comfortable with. According to the 'Identify with URI' good practice, http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-use-uris they should be just URIs, like in RDF; for example, the terms in the RDFS namespace are http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertOf etc. That's the easiest way to satisfy the QName Mapping requirement. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#qname-mapping Namespaces that use tricky or unspecified mappings to URIs don't lend themselves to cross-language use and shouldn't be encouraged, let alone baked-in. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 22:23:46 UTC