• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:17:31 -0500
• In-reply-to: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOELGFMAA.julian.reschke@g...>

julian.reschke@g... (Julian Reschke) writes:
>> 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)

That proof is genuinely trivial, with no substantive bearing on the
arguments being made.  That is possible does not mean that it is either
wise or an actual feature of QNames.

QNames have a different community of practice than URIs, and mere
formalisms do not and likely cannot reflect that.

-------------
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

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
    • From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>

• References:
  • RE: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
    • From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Does WTSIWYG make simplicity moot?
• Next by Date: Re: End of the Web browser era? And an opportunity for SVG?
• 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