[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Correction :RE: URIs, Names, QNames (RE: misprocessi
Sorry my whole point was using Qnames or whatever to reference types in a schema but I sent the message before actually completing the markup: <ns1:root xmlns:ns1="http://www.myOrg.org/ns/2002/" xmlns:ns1.1="ns1:foo1.xsd" xmlns:ns1.1.1="[ ns1.1:typeName | ns1.1:#typeName]"> > -----Original Message----- > From: Manos Batsis > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Jonathan Borden > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Subject: URIs, Names, QNames (RE: > misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a > meaning, but it's not in the data alone)) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] > > > > 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. > > Exactly. An resource can occur as a subject, object or predicate. > Referring to that resource *in* a simple type (from an XSD point of > view) leaves you with the choice of a QName or a full URI, witch is > rather messy. > > BTW I would love being able to declare namespaces as: > > <ns1:root xmlns:ns1="http://www.myOrg.org/ns/2002/" > xmlns:ns1.1="foo1.xsd" > xmlns:ns1.1.1="#typeName" > xmlns:ns1.2="foo.rdf" > xmlns:ns1.2.1="#typeName"> > > <!--OR xmlns:ns1.1.1="#XPointer(id('typeName')])" --> > > </ns1:root> > > IMHO, the above would have extremely high semantic value, making > automated processing rules easier and scalable. Less headaches too. > > > > 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. > > Fully agreed. I believe that the XML formal considerations about > Terseness and Readability are contradictive at this point. > > Kindest regards, > > Manos > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> > >
|
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
|