Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Defining non-WXS datatypes
>
> On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 15:12, Norman Walsh wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > / Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...> was heard to say:
> > | To my mind, the biggest problem with QNames, as defined in XML Schema,
> > | is that there's no way to construct a normalized representation that
> > | can be interpreted standalone, without context information. Whereas
> > | you can resolve relative URIs into an absolute URI, there's no way
> > | that you can normalize a QName in a way that doesn't completely depend
> > | 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).
please use a term other than "representation" for things like "{uri}name". at
least "lexical representation". the term used below, "lexical form", would
also be to be preferred. in any case, how is one to understand the above
paragraph such that the last sentence does not contradict the first?
> >
> > 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.
? how does it differ from the problem of recognizing an NCName in content?
> >
> > Defining the markup character on a per-vocabulary basis could be done.
> > Just as XSLT says that curly braces mean something special in (many)
> > attribute values, a language could say that "{" always introduces a
> > QName and therefore "{uri}name" is always equivalent to "x:name" where
> > x is bound to uri. Unfortunately, as soon as you start mixing
> > namespaces, you'd have to have rules for when its a markup character
> > and when it isn't.
how does "mixing namespaces" change the problem?
> > And you'd have to have some escaping mechanism
> > ({ won't cut it) for a literal "{".
why? [i've always argued for the parser handling _all_ QName <-> UName
mappings, but the position is not popular. thus, depending on the layer which
would attend to it, if it must be, (&#x7b;).]
> > And it would all be very
> > confusing.
more so than rec-xml-20001006 section 4.4.2 and appendix D?
...
|
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
|
|||||||||
