W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Revised namespaceState-48 finding (16 Dec 2005)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:49:19 -0500
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB9749428.02CE3C6A-ON852570D9.007CD422-852570D9.007D658C@lotus.com>

Dan Connolly writes:

> "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.

I believe that Norm is referring to the various Namespaces in XML 
Recommendations [1,2].  I think it's pretty clear that, using Namespaces 
1.1 as an example, the only members of a namespace to which you can refer 
using QNames are the ones that meet Norm's description [3].  I suppose you 
can make the case that Namespaces in XML are just a subset of the 
namespaces we are talking about, but at least for XML I believe there are 
Recommendations supporting Norm's formulation.

Maybe we need to think a bit about when we mean "Namespaces as introduced 
in the namespaces Recommendations" and when we mean something more 
general.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#concepts
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#sec-intro
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#NT-QName

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
12/16/05 05:23 PM
 
        To:     Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
        cc:     www-tag@w3.org, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: Revised namespaceState-48 finding (16 Dec 
2005)



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 22:49:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:10 UTC