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

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

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 02:36:37 -0800
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCDFEFB1B.53387509-ON88256C91.003A352A@us.ibm.com>





fyi, re. editing, w3c process is fine w/ editorial revisions during CR


............................................
David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int  Ph: 544.9665
fallside@us.ibm.com



|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "Henrik Frystyk  |
|         |           Nielsen"         |
|         |           <henrikn@microsof|
|         |           t.com>           |
|         |                            |
|         |           12/15/2002 09:39 |
|         |           PM               |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                        |
  |       To:       Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus                                                                    |
  |       cc:       "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, David          |
  |        Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>,  |
  |        "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <www-archive@w3.org>                                               |
  |       Subject:  RE: Editorial comments for Part 1, section 1-3                                                         |
  |                                                                                                                        |
  |                                                                                                                        |
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|



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 05:41:52 GMT

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