[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jcowan@reutershealth.com (John Cowan) writes:
>QNames are just a minimization practice and
>concession to the SGML name rules, but semantically they are the same
>as URIs.
Can we drop this bogus claim now?
QNames are NOT URIs, nor are they "semantically the same" as URIs.
URIs have no local name part, and there is no reliable mechanism for
treating QNames as URIs and vice-versa.
URIs are big on fixed schemes and context-independence (though Daniel
points out the relative URI reference mess that proves excruciating
periodically) while QNames are all about context-dependence and
changeable prefixes, without much regard for the scheme in any event.
How these two even get mentioned in the same breath is puzzling to me,
as it seems pretty painfully clear at this point that QNames are
(ab)users of URIs, not something on the same level as URIs.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
