W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2003

Which QName?

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:23:17 +0200
Message-ID: <3F3CDEC5.2060805@expway.fr>
To: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>

Hi,

I am unsure that this is an issue that should be considered by the TAG -- it may 
be more simply passed on to the XML CG -- however since the TAG is still working 
on rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 and has resolved qnameAsId-18[0] without a mention 
that I could find of this problem, I think the TAG should be aware of the 
problem whether it thinks it constitutes an issue or not.

The qnameAsId-18 states that "using the in-scope namespace bindings has the 
advantage that it theoretically allows a generic processor to interpret QNames 
in content without having to be aware of any application-specific mechanisms".

That, unfortunately, is very theoretical. There is dissent on which of the QName 
resolving rule applies to QNames in content: for XML Schema's xs:QName, the 
"element rules" apply so that no prefix means the default namespace applies; for 
XSLT, the "attribute rules" apply, and no prefix means no namespace.

I haven't found a document explaining which of those is the best option, or even 
putting the emphasis on clearly defining which one is to be chosen.

This has caused a certain amount of confusion in a number of discussions here 
and there, notably the xml:id discussion that took place here a few months back.

Have a nice week-end!


[0]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html
-- 
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway        http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Received on Friday, 15 August 2003 09:23:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:20 GMT