IRI escaping in CTM?
"Andrew S. Townley" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Folks, I've been doing some hunting, but I can't figure out how to otherwise escape something that would be interpreted automatically by CTM parsers as a "QName" but which would not otherwise follow the "QName as prefix" model presented in the CTM specification. According to section 3.3.4: "it is an error if the prefix has not been bound to an IRI as specified in 3.16.1." However, google seems to indicate that the discussion on how to provide generalized IRI escaping mechanisms for CTM was never resolved[1]. How would I specify either the relative IRI 'foo:bar' used as an item locator or http://example.com/path/foo:bar to get CTM not to complain? As an aside, the whole CTM "qname" with prefixes vs XML Namespace "QName" as orthogonal naming pair semantic dissonance seems to be wrong. Is it too late to change the terminology from 'qname' in CTM? Some good arguments for a similar issue with RDFa prefixes are articulated by Jeni Tennison[2] and might cause more of our potential topic map adopters to scream as well. Cheers, ast [1] http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2008-January/003565.html [2] http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/49 -- Andrew S. Townley <[email protected]> http://atownley.org