[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 15:12, Norman Walsh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
> | on the context in which it's going to be used. Perhaps a new datatype
> | library can define QNames in a different way, one that includes a
> | normalized version that's a legal representation (e.g. {uri}name).
>
> The problem with a lexical form for QNames is that you want them to be
> recognized in content, which means you need to start them with a
> markup character, which is a can of worms no matter how you look at
> it.
I agree that this looks like a terrible hack...
Maybe a naive question, but does a datatype library has to support
QNames?
Qnames are breaking the independence between the markup and the content.
Relax NG has a pretty clean separation between the validation of the
structure and the validation of the content (one is almost independent
from the other) and had to make an exception to this principle just to
support QNames.
Is this really worth the price?
I have always thought QNames in values were a very bad practise and it
seems to be a bad design decision to break a clean architecture only to
support a bad practise...
My 0.02 Euros
Eric
--
If you have a XML document, you have its schema.
http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
