Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: more QName madness
 John Cowan wrote: > I do not understand the URIs Good, QNames Bad point of view, since they are > plainly isomorphic. Indeed, RDF defines > a two-way mapping between QNames and (some) URIs. It would be more consistent > for you to attack URIs, QNames, and IP addresses, all of which are universal > agreements creating global names, in favor of some UUCP-like scheme where the > node that calls itself "deutsch" is known to its various neighbors as "german", > "duits", "tedesco", "allemagne", etc. etc. [with apologies in advance to those who hear this from me all too often] I believe that you are confusing the context of the document (within an internetwork addressing scheme) with its content, which we may assume exhibits both integrity and autonomy. [In my own 'best practices' I rigidly enforce the distinction by using attributes for the first and elements for the second, but that is a subject for another discussion.] Having a context for a document is the necessary consequence of having access to that document via the internetwork. By contrast, we should assume that the content of a document is entirely independent of its internetwork context. Documents are as their creators create them. A document changed as its transient context is altered is profoundly not the same document. REST is built largely upon that single premise. QNames in content are the mutilation of document integrity to embed context, and worse, context from a single, particular, transient point of view. If we grant the autonomy of a processing node, then the context which we have gone through such contortions to embed as QNames is useless to the very processing nodes where we had hoped that it would facilitate interop, because that context is unlikely to be the context of interest from the unique point of view of such a processing node. Processing on the internetwork inevitably involves fetching, or at least accepting, documents from internetwork-addressable locations. With each of those documents comes a context utterly specific to that use of that document on that occasion. Internetwork interop has to be predicated on the ability of each process to identify, distinguish and combine those particular contexts into a taxonomy unique to each instance of process. What could be further from serving this requirement than demanding an unachievable, static, a priori universal agreement on namespacing or name-qualifying standards for use in document content? Respectfully, Walter Perry 
|
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
|
|||||||||
