- From: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:11:09 +0100
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 12:55 Europe/Berlin, Kay, Michael wrote: > > i note that the comments period for this document is long > > over. i note > > also, however, that it has not yet been supplanted. should > > the occasion > > arise to release another version, it would be appropriate for it to > > address the following: > > > > [note please, except for citations, the following discussion uses > > "universal name" to describe data of the type (namespace-uri X > > local-part) and "qualified name" to denote data of the type (prefix X > > local-part). please do try to retain that terminology in your > > replies - > > the term "QName" which appears in the document does little to further > > careful reasoning, as it is meaningless unless qualified.] > > The terminology we are trying to use is "lexical QName" for the > (prefix, local-name) pair, and "expanded QName" for the (uri, > local-name) pair. I agree that we need to be very careful about the > distinction and this isn't always true of the current drafts. please explain why, in the case of standards which are as central as the further development of xml applications, it is appropriate to use terminilogy which is bound to engeder confusion, instead of terminology which is inherently unambiguous. ...
Received on Monday, 27 October 2003 08:11:46 UTC