- From: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 01:22:33 +0100
- To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 01:19 PM, Kay, Michael wrote: > > > This is certainly a good use case. However, it's > > interesting that the > > > argument to the xs:QName constructor is a string literal. > > But actually > > > any expression that yields a string can be used here. > > > > is there any difference in the capability offered by a function which > > took the iri and local part as two distinct string data. > > I think there are two differences > > (a) there is an indirection: the binding of the prefix to the URI can > be changed at any time, in one place i thought it was possible to define variables in these languages. > > (b) there is a convenience; the syntactic notation of > prefix:local-name is familiar and people are comfortable with it. for forms which appear in encoded documents it makes perfect sense. for forms which are intended to be interpreted in a dynamic context that notation _makes _no_ sense_. > > > > there should be _no_ formal difference in terms of expressiveness > > between binding an iri to a prefix and binding an iri to a variable. > > > I agree with that. We aren't talking about expressive power here, we > are talking about usability considerations. i am glad to see that we now have that stated explicitly. next question: how usable is an operator which does not close over the intended model? > > Michael Kay >
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2003 19:23:13 UTC