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 typeQNam e?

From: Vun Kannon, David <dvunkannon@kpmg.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:13:36 -0500
Message-Id: <17D550E30E75D31190C30008C75DCFC40607F525@usmnyexc06.kweb.us.kpmg.com>
To: "'James Clark'" <jjc@jclark.com>, "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>
This is an acceptable resolution to the narrow question. The desired
behavior of walking into the namespace and verifying somehow that for
foo:bar there is a 'bar' defined, I now see requires a lot more hints to
acheive. At least a does-exist() function for the namespace. 
Thanks,
David vun Kannon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:16 AM
> To: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Cc: Henry S. Thompson; www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org; Vun 
> Kannon, David
> Subject: Re: what should I expect for validation of attributes of
> typeQName?
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
*****************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized. 

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.         
*****************************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2001 15:14:08 GMT

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