[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: more QName madness

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: more QName madness
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:34:35 -0500
• References: <r01050400-1022-EB90555DFA6411D687D90003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

Simon St. Laurent wrote:
> jcowan@r... (John Cowan) writes:
> >Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
> >
> >> I think I've already made it clear that between MIME Content Type
> >> registrations and the limited number of plausible generic schemes a
> >> new registry is unnecessary.
> >
> >Why do only generic schemes count?  What about idiosyncratic schemes?
...>
> I have seen absolutely zero demonstration that the world needs as open
> an approach as the URI-based QName system creates.  Having created
> several schemes myself, I think I'm in a decent position to guess what's
> out there.
>

Pehaps we really don't need such an easily extensible XPointer mechanism as
QName schemes ... and if this *does* become needed it could always be added
in XPointer 2.0.

I think there is value in defining a fixed and predefined set of schemes for
application/xml and allowing new schemes to be registered for new
application/*+xml media types in the media type registration.

That assuming that we can have #xpath1 in the base XPointer set -- there are
only a certain number of *good* ways to skin a cat :-)

Jonathan

• References:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Next by Date: RE: RDF : Headless Triples syntax
• Previous by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Next by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread