• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:56:32 -0800
• In-reply-to: <f5b1yfptrsa.fsf@c...>

At 01:50 PM 13/02/02 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:

I fought against letting QNames escape into content, lost 
the argument to James Clark, but I'm beginning to think that
the cost-benefit trade-off is positive, despite the considerable
cost.  

>2) "..there's no way for an XML processor to tell whether QNames are
>   used in values." (again, quoting Lenz [2], ellipses in original)
>
>That's simply false -- any sensible use of QNames would involve a W3C
>XML Schema or other type-assigning schema language, 

No, Henry.  A substtantial proportion of application use no schemas
whatsoever past design time.  Yes, IF you have a schema language
that supports QNames as a type and IF you have a such a schema for
the XML language you're using and IF you're willing to take
the overhead of schema validation at run-time, THEN there
is a way for an XML processor to tell whether QNames are 
hiding in content.  Otherwise not. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
  • Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
    • From: amyzing@t... (Amy Lewis )

• References:
  • Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
• Next by Date: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Previous by thread: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• Next by thread: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread