W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Updated finding: QNames in Content

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:27:12 -0500
Message-Id: <p0601020fbc287987bf5c@[192.168.254.4]>
To: "Paul Cotton" <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <www-tag@w3.org>

At 7:36 AM -0800 1/12/04, Paul Cotton wrote:

>The XQuery/XPath specifications [1] use QNames to identify functions in
>these languages.  Since this is another example of a different use of
>QNames it might be good if the finding could state that this is okay.


I would prefer the finding to state that this is not OK, as I've 
already expressed to the XQuery working group. 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Nov/0189.html> 
The use of prefixes on functions and operators in XQuery is very 
confusing, especially since they tend not to be used at all. In fact, 
I found that when I simply removed all prefixes from functions and 
operators and all references to the functions and operators 
namespaces from my XQuery notes, everything was still accurate, still 
worked, and was more easily understood by students. If the prefixes 
aren't even necessary, why do we have them in the first place? I 
think this is a classic case of the mistaken urge to identify 
everything with a URI and namespace, whether it makes any sense to do 
so or not.


-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@metalab.unc.edu
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml            
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA 
Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 11:28:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT