[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:18 PM
> To: XML DEV
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
>
>
> julian.reschke@gmx.de (Julian Reschke) writes:
> >> I have to agree with Simon. I am quite puzzled by John's claim
> >> that QNames are isomporphic to URIs.
> >
> >Sorry?
> >
> >The trivial proof is to define a function that maps any given QName
> >(URI, local name pair) to a URI. That's not hard to do.
> >
> >(and no, the generated URIs will not be particulary pretty)
>
> That proof is genuinely trivial, with no substantive bearing on the
> arguments being made. That is possible does not mean that it is either
> wise or an actual feature of QNames.
>
> QNames have a different community of practice than URIs, and mere
> formalisms do not and likely cannot reflect that.
Yes, and I didn't claim that.
Besides, in the meantime I've learned that I in fact was talking about
*expanded* names. However I've got the feeling that most of the people that
talk about QNames really want to talk about (namespaceName, localName) pairs
(see TAG).
Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
|
