- From: Daniela Florescu <danielaf@bea.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:56:35 -0800
- To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Michael, First: our specs are inconsistent in tis area. Both the Data Model and the XQuery specs are written as if the type annotation returns a Qname. We HAVE to fix this problem. Second, allowing the type annotation to be an anonymous identifier seems like one of those decisions that will cost us grief for the next 10 versions of XQuery. Even if in V1 this request for functionality will not be accepted: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2004Feb/0426.html it will be in some ulterior version. Our experience is that functionality is really required for serious use cases. And when it will be the time to accept this, then we will suffer the consequences of this bad decision. Best regards, Dana On Feb 16, 2004, at 2:39 AM, Michael Kay wrote: >> >> 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 >
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 14:55:46 UTC