W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2002

RE: Editorial comments for Part 1, section 1-3

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:39:54 -0800
Message-ID: <68B95AA1648D1840AB0083CC63E57AD6097C690D@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <www-archive@w3.org>

Hmm, I have always read the term "XML qualified name" in the context stated in the description in the namespace spec:
 
"Note that the prefix functions only as a placeholder for a namespace name. Applications should use the namespace name, not the prefix, in constructing names whose scope extends beyond the containing document."
 
I vaquely remember that the WG agreed on using this term some time ago but I can't find the reference anywhere. Can somebody remember the details?
 
The potential problem by using the old phrase is that it is not clear whether or how the "combination" should be computed: because we don't say: should they be concatinated, or something else?
 
In any case, we use the term "XML qualified name" fairly consistently so if we have problems in section 2.4, then we may have it in other places as well. In any case, I agree that it is an editorial edit.
 
Henrik
 
________________________________

From:	 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]	
Sent:	 Fri 13-Dec-02 20:59	
To:	 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen	
Cc:	 Anish Karmarkar; Nilo Mitra; David Fallside; Marc Hadley; Martin Gudgin; Jean-Jacques Moreau; www-archive@w3.org	
Subject:	 Re: Editorial comments for Part 1, section 1-3	
 	

I know I'm late going through these, but I think it's appropriate to
continue editorial refinements as we move between CR and PR.   Overall, I
think your proposed improvements are terrific.  There's one I would roll
back (presuming it happened:  I'm offline and can't get to the latest CR
draft):

You propose:

* S2.4, P1: Change "by the combination of [local name] and [namespace]"
to "by the XML qualified name"

Though I like this use of "qualified name" in principle, I don't think
we've introduced it in a rigorous manner, have we?    Lacking that, I
think the original is less ambiguous.  Some might read the revised as
applying to the {prefix,lname} pair.  I'd revert to the original.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 00:40:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:24 GMT