W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2003

RE: F&O 2.2 - Inconsistent Definition

From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 01:40:44 +0100
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E621060453E0FC@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: Svgdeveloper@aol.com, public-qt-comments@w3.org

Yes. Generally, whenever we use the term QName we should make it clear
whether we mean a QName as defined in XML Namespaces (a "lexical QName") or
a QName as defined in XML Schema (an "expanded QName"). It is very
unfortunate that these two specifications use the same term with subtly
different meanings.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Svgdeveloper@aol.com [mailto:Svgdeveloper@aol.com] 
> Sent: 28 February 2003 20:05
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: F&O 2.2 - Inconsistent Definition
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of the node-name() function in 2.2 and in the 
> table in 2 use 
> the terms QName and expanded-QName as if they are interchangeable.
> 
> It seems to me that these need to be reviewed with the aim of 
> improving 
> consistency and clarity.
> 
> Andrew Watt
> 
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 19:40:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:24 GMT