OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: Canonicalized Schemas

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • To: "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>, XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@xml.org>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:15:12 -0500

At 01:08 PM 3/10/00 -0800, Box, Don wrote: 
> This means that the canonicalization would need to take into account the
> QName datatype and normalize those values along with the namespace decls.

It's a more formal way of putting it, but yes, that's right.  Creating a list
of prefix to URI mappings could cause problems if the same prefix pointed to
multiple URIs at different points in the document or vice-versa.  QNames are
probably the right place to do this, though I doubt it's much fun.

In any case, I'd like to see some kind of formal and preferably official
clarification of these issues.  c14n and the Infoset seem like the right
to me, but it looks like both consider QNames/prefixes as discarded.  (Infoset
does provide the namespace declarations needed to reconstruct them, however.) 
While it might be the right thing to do in terms of the Namespaces in XML
recommendation, it's not so good for Schemas and XLink.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth

This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS