RE: Chapter 2.4 Inconsistencies

Hi Andrew,

I looked at 2.4, and (though I admit namespace issues can be confusing) all
the references in that particular section seem OK.

In every case, the we are talking about an element with a local name of cc
(to use that one example), with a namespace URI of
http://commerce.example.com/payment

* In the XML initial instance data, this is accomplished with a default
namespace (xmlns="...")

* In the XPath expressions, it is with a specific prefix (xmlns:pay="..").
This is in fact the only way to make such a reference in XPath

* The running text uses XPath-style fully qualified names ("pay:cc")

I did notice that later on, in 2.5, we refer to "cc" and other elements
without fully qualifying. Yup, that's confusing. We should be more
consistent. Josef, can you fix these along with the rest of Andrew's
excellent observations? Thanks!

At one point, we wanted to include an informative appendix on namespace
issues. Andrew, would you find that helpful?

Thanks,

.micah


-----Original Message-----
From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2001@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:48 PM
To: www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Chapter 2.4 Inconsistencies


There are several inconsistencies in element naming in Chapter 2.4,
specifically relating to the use of terms such as <pay:cc> versus <cc>. The
absence of a namespace prefix in the instance data shown in Chapter 2.4 can
be expected to lead to errors when applying the binding expressions shown in
the same chapter. 

There are typos in the chapter too. 

Andrew Watt

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 11:53:45 UTC