Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I have to agree with Simon. I am quite puzzled by John's claim that QNames are isomporphic to URIs. -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] Sent: Thu 11/14/2002 7:29 AM To: XML DEV Cc: Subject: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness) jcowan@r... (John Cowan) writes: >QNames are just a minimization practice and >concession to the SGML name rules, but semantically they are the same >as URIs. Can we drop this bogus claim now? QNames are NOT URIs, nor are they "semantically the same" as URIs. URIs have no local name part, and there is no reliable mechanism for treating QNames as URIs and vice-versa. URIs are big on fixed schemes and context-independence (though Daniel points out the relative URI reference mess that proves excruciating periodically) while QNames are all about context-dependence and changeable prefixes, without much regard for the scheme in any event. How these two even get mentioned in the same breath is puzzling to me, as it seems pretty painfully clear at this point that QNames are (ab)users of URIs, not something on the same level as URIs. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
