• To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,"XML DEV" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
• From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:08:07 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F8040EF78A@R...>

> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...]
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:00 PM
> To: Simon St.Laurent; XML DEV
> Subject: RE:  QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Simon. I am quite puzzled by John's claim 
> that QNames are isomporphic to URIs. 

Sorry?

The trivial proof is to define a function that maps any given QName (URI, local name pair) to a URI. That's not hard to do.

(and no, the generated URIs will not be particulary pretty)

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Only a matter of technology...
• Next by Date: Re: Does WTSIWYG make simplicity moot?
• Previous by thread: RE: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
• Next by thread: RE: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread