W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2002

RE: Data Model 3.4 "Expanded-QName"

From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 07:56:14 +0200
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E6210602679DA6@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Yes, we should explain this term better.

We had a problem because the term "QName", which traditionally (and in the
Namespaces REC) is used to mean a construct of the form prefix:local-name,
is used in the Schema recommendation to refer to a data type whose lexical
form is prefix:local-name and whose value space consists of (namespace-uri,
local-name) tuples. XPath 1.0 referred to this as an expanded name. To avoid
ambiguous use of the term "QName", we decided to use "expanded-QName" to
represent these tuples.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2001@aol.com] 
> Sent: 13 May 2002 13:49
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Data Model 3.4 "Expanded-QName"
> 
> 
> Reference is made in 3.4 of Data Model to the term "Expanded-QName".
> 
> It was not clear whether an "expanded-QName" is or is not the 
> same as the 
> more familiar terms "expanded name" or "expanded-name".
> 
> If the two terms differ then I suggest it would be useful to 
> describe the 
> essential difference(s) when the term "expanded-QName" is 
> first introduced in 
> 3.4.
> 
> If the two terms mean the same what is the purpose of adding 
> a new term with 
> essentially the same meaning?
> 
> Andrew Watt
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 01:56:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:22 GMT