RE: QNames in examples

Hmm, looks like we are in agreement here, I have the same set of
likes/dislikes. In particular I find too much prefixing very distracting in
the examples.

I suggest that we remove the prefixes from the QNames in the running text so
we have consistency here. That also means that our problem with
Success.NotFound etc. goes away


	Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: QNames in examples
> 
> 
> On Friday 04 April 2003 13:40, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > I have been looking at the issue of QNames in the examples, 
> they appear
> > to me to be correct. 
> 
> My mistake, the in-scope default namespace is declared for 
> the value space, 
> and the lexical value does not require the prefix: it's optional.
> 
> Regarding the prefix in the running text, in XENC I used the 
> convention that 
> the xenc element/attribute types were unprefixed and the 
> external types 
> (i.e., dsig) were prefixed, both of which corresponded to the 
> examples. 
> XENC and DSIG identifiers are URIs, so that's what the 
> examples showed 
> though in the running text I'd use an entity (e.g., &dsig;KeyInfo).
> 
> Those conventions work well for element/attribute types but 
> can be confusing 
> for QNames that are used as identifires. The SOAP primer simply uses 
> prefixes for everything; WSDL is specified mostly as an Infoset 
> description, but in its table and examples it uses the prefixes [1].
> 
> Which ever way we go, we should strive for some consistency 
> such that one 
> can search for and see these things consistently in the spec. 
> So that would 
> mean either all XKMS types are prefixed or not. In tables of 
> identifiers, I 
> like the prefixes (or it should be made clear all those types 
> in the table 
> have certain NS declarations in scope) but in the examples I 
> don't like to 
> see the "xkms:" prefix anywhere... I suppose I prefer the 
> former to the 
> latter ... ?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12/#language-extensibility
>

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 14:46:40 UTC