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

RE: Potential new TAG issue: Numeric LocalPart of QName held inattribute value

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:14:47 -0400
To: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF93815446.E29FF6A8-ON85257043.00523FEB-85257043.0054572C@lotus.com>

Misha Wolf writes:

> We have considered this approach but are concerned
> that masses of software expect, say, the GICS code
> for Oil & Gas Exploration & Production to be
> "10102020".  If we tell people to use "_10102020"
> instead, we are likely to give such software
> indigestion.

Am I correct that such software is also likely to work correctly only on 
the first of the following two equivalent forms?

   I.  <e demoAttr="3" xmlns="http://example.org/demoNs"/>

   II.  <e demoAttr="p:3" xmlns:p="http://example.org/demoNs"/>

Whatever the other pros and cons of QNames, it seems to me that you should 
use them properly and consistently if they are used at all.  I'm not clear 
on why Dan's suggestion of:

   I'. <e demoAttr="_3" xmlns="http://example.org/demoNs"/>

is harder for legacy software than II. above, and you're presumably 
committed to supporting that in any case?



Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2005 15:14:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:09 UTC