RE: [DM] BEA_005

I do not think that we can find a usable way to make an anonymous type a
QName.

This request seems like a vacuous simplification, in that it claims to
make the specification simpler but in truth makes the system more
complex.

Best regards
Michael (speaking for myself)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kay
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 2:39 AM
> To: 'Daniela Florescu'; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [DM] BEA_005
> 
> 
> >
> > We should simplify the data model and request the name of a type
(even
> > anonymous) to be a legal Qname.
> >
> 
> Since there is no way for an application to determine the name of an
> anonymous type, this would be (a) an unnecessary constraint on
> implementations, and (b) an untestable assertion.
> 
> Of course, if your comment requesting that this property be exposed to
> applications is accepted, then this objection disappears.
> 
> Michael Kay