W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > November 2006

Re: QNames vs. NCNames

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:51:59 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0611270651v588e84aew86c375e8e1ae5113@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 11/27/06, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> / ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
> | In the current draft, the names of ports, pipelines and steps have
> | type 'QName', whereas the names of parameters and the built-in
> | constructs (viewport etc.) have type 'token'.
> |
> | I could _maybe_ see the logic for not using QNames for parameter
> | names, but seems difficult to explain why e.g. an XSLT step is named
> | with a QName but a 'for-each' is not. . .
> |
> | Is this a bug or a feature?
>
> A little of both. The name of a parameter has to be token because
> we allow '*' and 'foo:*' in addition to proper QNames. The names
> of the built-in constructs should be QName, I think.

So may be instead of 'token' could we use 'QName | Wildcard'
and define Wildcard as in XPath 2.0 ?

Regards,

Mohamed


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 14:52:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:49 GMT