On Jul 21, 2006, at 2:28 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> If there's a better solution, now would be the time to discuss it.
> But since this is already standard practice, and recommended by the
> official standard,
Well, OK then. I didn't know it was already so specified.
> I think we should proceed as-is. It works.
It's just, it seems you end up in really hairy situations if you adopt
this as a general practice (as opposed to a really narrow one, like
maybe defining formulas or elements to output).
For example, how does a processor know whether "re:something" indicates
namespaced content, or whether it's simply content than happens to have
a ":" character?
We'll be faced with this choice (whether to use GNames or full uris)
probably in the metadata work, and my understanding has always been
that it's bad practice to use QNames in this context.
So we may end up with a situation where they're allowed in some places
(say formulas) and not elsewhere. Is that fine?
Bruce
