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

RE: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?

• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
• To: "'Andrew Welch'" <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>,"'XML Developers List'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:53:12 +0100

> - I would allow the use of the namespace directly, eg 
> <com.mycomp:elem> instead of forcing the definition of a 
> prefix <m:elem xmlns="com.mycomp">

There's actually a debate going on in the XSLT/XQuery groups at the moment
about allowing a syntax for QNames (for example in XPath expressions and in
places in XSLT where QNames are used at run-time) that consists of the URI
and local-name, without requiring a prefix. Finding the right syntax is not
easy. I think it needs to work with all namespace names, which certainly
includes all legal IRIs and possibly includes all strings. Clark notation
{uri}local is one candidate, though the curly braces cause problems in some
contexts such as XSLT attribute value templates. I've been proposing
backticks: `uri`local or `uri`:local but there's a fair bit of opposition to
that on aesthetic grounds. (Curly braces and backticks are some of the few
characters that are illegal in IRIs).

I would certainly like to see such a notation gradually become acceptable in
all contexts where QNames are used, including element and attribute names in
lexical XML. I suspect it also needs to be distinguishable from the
prefix:local-name form, to allow mixing of both forms.

Allowing :elem to refer to a name in no namespace would also seem a useful
(and compatible) step forward.

If only people had restricted namespaces to use the syntax of XML names,
this would all be so much easier!

Regards,

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@us.ibm.com>
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: rjelliffe@allette.com.au
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: Laurens van den Oever <laurens@xopus.com>
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>
  • RE: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: "Jim Tivy" <jimt@bluestream.com>
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
  • RE: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: Michael Ludwig <milu71@gmx.de>
  • Re: XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>