Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a mea
Mike Champion wrote: > 1/30/2002 1:02:33 PM, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> > wrote: > > >Weirder, actually. Like: > ><test http://foo.com/bar/baz="value" /> > > What's weird about that (other than the http:// ...and all the > baggage that drags along with it)? I thought terseness was not a > consideration for XML? > > There was a long, long sml-dev thread on this horrid subject, and the > conclusion (as I recall) that simply putting the full domain > qualifier in the markup vocabulary was the cleanest solution for > everyone concerned (except the typist). > This thread is great. If you take a look at the RDF activity, you'll see syntaxes such as N-triples that provide statements (triples) in their full URI format: everything becomes a URI, no need for element or attribute names. Well it turns out that this if just fine for software but a real bear for humans to read, and so people (specifically the RDF folks) turn back to QNames, using QNames as a shorthand for URIs (e.g. RDF/XML and N3). That is the same reason for the proliferation of QNames in attribute values (human readability) Imagine what an XPath would look like in expanded URI form. Terseness aside, there is something to be said for human readability, and problems with prefixes aside, people are drawn to qnames because they are easy to read, especially if you use a well-known prefix. Jonathan
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format