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

Re: more QName madness

• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: more QName madness
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 07:39:02 -0800
• Cc: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>,XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <200211141440.JAA06214@m...>
• References: <200211141440.JAA06214@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016

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.

I don't think so.  RDF defines such a mapping, but (for example) 
XSchema, which allows  identification of type by qname, does not.  I 
might be a little less nervous about qname proliferation if they were in 
fact isomorphic to URIs.

>   It would be more consistent
> for you to attack URIs, QNames, and IP addresses, all of which are
> universal agreements creating global names,

Well, such universal agreements are expensive.  We have two: the IP 
address space and the DNS.  We hace a universal naming scheme, the URI, 
that builds on these.  Can we please stop and not invent any more?

>  in favor of some UUCP-like
> scheme 

  -Tim

UUCP hehe, one long-ago signature:
Tim Bray {decvax!microsoft!, ihnp4!alberta!} ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Next by Date: Only a matter of technology...
• Previous by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Next by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread