W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > December 2002

[Michael Rys: FW: XML Query WG Feedback on Sept WD of Namespaces in XML 1.1]

From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:05:35 GMT
Message-Id: <200212051005.KAA15204@sorley.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
To: xml-names-editor@w3.org

Forwarded to the public list for the record.

---- Start of forwarded text ----
> From: Michael Rys [mailto:mrys@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 12:32 PM
> To: w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XML Query WG Feedback on Sept WD of Namespaces in XML 1.1
> 
>  
> 
> The reply states:
> 
> <cite>
> 
> > 5. The namespace spec should say how namespace declarations should map
> > onto the Infoset. It should distinguish the syntactic form from the
> > information content in sentences like the following:
> >
> >[...]
>  
> Summary: accepted in part
>  
> The Infoset spec is layered on top of XML 1.x and Namespaces 1.x, and
> namespace processing occurs before (and as part of) the construction
> of an Infoset.  The Namespace spec cannot therefore use Infoset terms
> for its input, and the description of the Infoset properties belongs
> in the Infoset spec.  However, we now defined the terms "namespace
> name" and "local name" consistently with the Infoset, XPath, and XML
> Schemas, which we hope goes some way to resolving your concern.
> 
> </cite>
> 
>  
> 
> I think that this is not enough. We requested that "The namespace spec
> should say how namespace declarations should map ONTO the Infoset" which
> means that the infoset contributions of the namespace declarations
> should be made clear. This is not in contradiction with the processing
> model since we did not request that the input was described in infoset
> terms.      
>  
> The following sentence scares me:
> <cite>
> We expect to issue a minor update to the Infoset spec, mentioning
> prefix undeclaring.  There will not be two Infosets, but as you
> say some Infosets will not be accurately serializable as XML 1.1.
> </cite>
>  
> Since this would mean that a data model will not have a way to
> distinguish v1.1 and v1.0 subtrees and may foster expectations that
> users can freely mix XML 1.1 and 1.0 documents.
>  
> Given that there is not clear subset relationship (there are potentially
> XML 1.0 documents that are not 1.1 documents), this should not be
> allowed.
>  
> (Note that this is not relevant to Namespaces 1.1 but XML 1.1).
>  
> Best regards
> Michael
---- End of forwarded text ----
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 05:05:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:43 GMT