[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Formula subcommittee status
I said: > > 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? I propose that they do this trivially - if it has a potential namespace name followed by ":", it's the namespace. You could even say "... and there is such a namespace" if that worries you. This is a _should_ in the specification, not a _may_. > 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? Fine by me. Though I expect we'll see this kind of issue again. This is a well-known solution to a particular problem, and (1) nobody seems to have a better solution and (2) it's widespread practice. I see this as an example of standards evolving to solve real-world problems, rather than being a problem in itself. --- David A. Wheeler
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]