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

Re: Potential new TAG issue: Numeric LocalPart of QName held in attribute value

From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:29:06 -0400
Message-ID: <42DD3862.8060700@metalab.unc.edu>
To: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
CC: www-tag@w3.org

Misha Wolf wrote:

>> 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"/>

I don't think that was Dan's suggestion at all. Remember relative 
namespace URIs are deprecated and undefined. he was proposing something 
more like this:

<e demoAttr="3" xml:base="http://example.org/demoNs"/>

This makes a little more sense because the namespace mechanism is not 
being overloaded to handle something it wasn't designed for.

This still has problems because xml:base has meaning for other elements 
and attributes as well that you might not want. Better still would be:

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

where the base attribute is defined only to have meaning for this 
particular application.

Best of all would be to ignore this whole attempt to map these numbers 
to URIs somehow and just use the numbers themselves:

<e demoAttr="3" />

If you want to define these in URIs somewhere , fine; but there's no 
need to clutter your XML documents with them. Not every datum needs to 
be or have a URI. Sometimes a number is just a number. Sometimes a 
number is an identifier from a space other than the Web. This URI 
everywhere insanity must stop.

´╗┐Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2005 17:29:13 UTC

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