W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: what should I expect for validation of attributes of type QName?

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:05:35 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010305194018.02b23dd0@espanola.com>
To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Cc: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, "Vun Kannon, David" <dvunkannon@kpmg.com>
At 2001-01-27 03:37, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> writes:
>
> > > One slight correction. The QName datatype does NOT require there to 
> be a NS
> > > declaration in scope.  To quote from the spec:
> > >
> > >         QName represents XML qualified names. The value space
> > >         of QName is the set of tuples {namespace name, local part},
> > >         where namespace name is a uriReference and local part is
> > >         an NCName. The lexical space of QName is the set of strings
> > >         that match the QName production of [Namespaces in XML].
> > >
> > > There is no requirement, per se, that there be a namespace decl in scope.
> >
> > This doesn't make any sense to me at all.

This is to report formally that the WG did consider this question at
its face to face meeting in Cambridge last week (as issue CR-65), and
concluded that the presence of a prefix-to-namespace-name association
should be treated as a condition of type validity, and that the datatypes
part of the spec should say so clearly.

(I note in passing that Henry and others seem to me wrong in saying
this type therefore makes sense solely in XML documents:  the current
draft XQuery language can stand as an example of a non-XML notation which
provides namespace declarations with a given scope, in which this
type might be expected to be used.  I believe saying that there must be
a namespace declaration in scope -- rather than saying there must be
such a declaration on an ancestor element -- is a suitable way of
allowing for such situations.  But here I am speaking solely for myself,
not for the WG.)

James and David -- please let us know if this result is an acceptable
resolution of the question for you.

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 22:13:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:49 GMT