W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ql@w3.org > April to June 2003

No Namespace Variables and Functions Extensions

From: Mark R Maxey <Mark_R_Maxey@raytheon.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:24:49 -0500
Message-ID: <3EF36D91.6070807@raytheon.com>
To: www-ql@w3.org
CC: Mark_R_Maxey@raytheon.com
A vendor that implements XQuery is free to extend the standard F&O by 
adding new functions and variables as it likes.  It would seem natural 
to me that a vendor who does this would want to create a special 
reserved namespace containing these extensions.  However, my 
understanding is that the vendor could also add these into the no 
namespace as well.

Is this a good idea?  The potential problems I see are two fold:

    * Interoperability suffers because one vendor may have reserved
      variables or functions another doesn't
    * Compliance with the W3C recommendation is questionable since the
      normative examples & use cases provided may or may not work
      "as-is" without some manipulation (changing variable or function
      names)

The analogy I would make is to Java.  Java has a specification and there 
are several vendors who implement that specification.  It would be like 
a vendor would be able to introduce special reserved variable names - 
without a package name.  Yes, there may be value-added, but does this 
JDK conform to the Java standard?

I'm still trying to get my hands around what the W3C wants to mandate, 
what it wants to recommend, and what it wants to leave up to the 
implementation.  One alternative would be to say that the no namespace 
is "final" in that it is closed for extension by XQuery parsers, but 
open to XQuery developers.

I can see it both ways, so I wanted to hear what others thought . . .


-- 

	
	*Mark Maxey*
Senior S/W Engineer II
972.205.5760
972.205.6144 fax
Mark_R_Maxey@Raytheon.com <mailto:Mark_R_Maxey@raytheon.com>
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 16:26:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 22 July 2006 00:10:18 GMT