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 typeQName?

From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 13:16:14 +0700
Message-ID: <3AA480AE.3E094352@jclark.com>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, "Vun Kannon, David" <dvunkannon@kpmg.com>
Yes, this is an acceptable resolution.

"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" wrote:
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 6 March 2001 01:39:40 GMT

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