Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: "james anderson" <james.anderson@s...>
> Bob Foster wrote:
> >
> > > / Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...> was heard to say:
> > > | on the context in which it's going to be used. Perhaps a new
datatype
> > > | library can define QNames in a different way, one that includes a
> > > | normalized version that's a legal representation (e.g. {uri}name).
> > >
> > > The problem with a lexical form for QNames is that you want them to be
> > > recognized in content, which means you need to start them with a
> > > markup character, which is a can of worms no matter how you look at
> > > it.
> >
> > I think Jeni is talking about a datatype library that defines an
internal,
> > canonical representation of QNames used for validation. Forming the
> > representation requires document context.
>
> That does not follow from her text.
True. She might have meant the other. But in that case, they wouldn't be
QNames.
Bob Foster
|
