W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > August 1999

Re: Contradictory definitions of ``qualified name''

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 10:10:37 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990804100958.011cd820@pop.intergate.bc.ca>
To: abrahams@acm.org, xml-names-editor@w3.org
At 12:32 PM 8/4/99 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
>I am troubled by the use of the term ``qualified name'' in the W3C
>Namespace specification.  In the second-to-last paragraph of Sec. 1, it
>says:
>
>"Names from XML namespaces may appear as qualified names, which contain
>a single colon, separating the name into a namespace prefix and a local
>part."
>
>Since the ``which'' clause is nonrestrictive, the sentence implies that
>a qualified name must contain exactly one colon.  But the syntactic
>definitions in Sec. 3 state that a qualified name consists of an
>optional prefix followed by a local part, thus implying that a qualified
>name must contain at most one colon.   There's a contradiction here.

Yep, the wording could be better.  However the intent is clear; people
have certainly complained about the namespace spec, but nobody has ever
had a problem with the fact that some names have prefixes, others don't.
The sentence in section 1 needs to be fuzzified a bit.

>Another loose end that needs to be tied up is the statement in the XML
>spec (the note in Sec. 2.3) that the colon within XML names is reserved
>for experimentation with name spaces (not namespaces!!).  Given the
>content of the Namespace spec, there seems to be no reason even to imply

Yes, well we can't retroactively change XML 1.0 except to fix editorial
errors - which that note isn't.  In fact, from a pure XML 1.0 point of view,
the element type <a:b:c:d /> is perfectly legal, and we can't change
that. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 1999 13:10:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:42 GMT