W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2006

Re: [css3-namespace] XML Core WG's review

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 19:52:17 +0200
Message-ID: <243410715.20060908195217@w3.org>
To: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Thursday, September 7, 2006, 7:45:40 PM, François wrote:

FY> Anne van Kesteren a écrit:
 >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:17:12 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
 >> wrote:
 >> > 2) Since this module is about namespaces, we believe it should make
 >> > a normative, rather than an informative, reference to Namespaces 1.0
 >> > and Namespaces 1.1...

 >> How does that cover the theoretical Namespaces 2.0, Namespaces for
 >> HTML and Namespaces for Tree-based-language Triple-X?

FY> It doesn't.  If the Namespaces module wants to do that, it needs to 
FY> define its own terms, not lamely say "The terminology used in this 
FY> specification is that of [XML-NAMES11]." and then pretend the reference 
FY> is not normative.  There needs to be a normative definition of what 
FY> you're talking about somewhere.

I agree (clearly the XML namespace specifications should be normative
references).

FY> BTW the terminology is *not* used as in [XML-NAMES11] (but should be, 
FY> IMHO).  For example, first sentence of Section 3: "The @namespace 
FY> at-rule declares a namespace prefix and associates it with a given 
FY> namespace (a string)."  A namespace is not a string; it is identified by
FY> a string, which [XML-NAMES11] calls the namespace name.

So "The @namespace at-rule declares a namespace prefix and associates it
with a given namespace name (a string)."  would respond to your comment.


FY>   There's another
FY>   case not far below: "it is the expanded name  (the tuple of local name
FY> and namespace) that is significant."  [XML-NAMES11] says: "[Definition: 
FY> An expanded name is a pair consisting of a namespace name and a local 
FY> name. ]"

So "it is the expanded name (the tuple of local name and namespace name)
that is significant."

Did you spot any other instances of incorrect use of terminology besides
these two? If so, could you list them?



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 8 September 2006 17:52:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:46 GMT