Re: WD-xpath-functions-20030502: casting xs:QName

On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 00:52 Europe/Berlin, Kay, Michael wrote:

> >
> > there is already a standard term for that. the term is
> > universal name.
>
> Where is this standard term defined? The XML Namespaces 1.0 
> specification uses the term "universal name" once, in passing, in the 
> introduction. It neither defines the term, nor does it ever use it 
> again.

that was unfortunate. i did recognize in my earlier note that it did 
use the term "expanded name" in the appendix. to date, i have preferred 
a term in the body of the specification to terms from other documents 
which were inherently contradictory.

>  The XML Namespace 1.1 specification uses the XPath 1.0 term "expanded 
> name" for the concept, with a formal definition.

given the coherent definition, "expanded name" is the term which should 
be used. it still has the disadvantage, that, it depends on a concept 
which is not intrinsic - namely the expansion process, but at least it 
is not a contradiction in terms.

>
>  
> >
> > the schema specifications were wrong when the used that term the way
> > they did. the passage of time has not made them right. they are still
> > wrong now.
>
> We are trying hard to present a coherent set of specifications to the 
> implementor and user community, as you clearly think we should be 
> doing. We won't achieve that if we simply announce confrontationally 
> that another WG was "wrong".

how else does one cause a shift in terminology than to argue the 
existing terms are not the right ones for the task, because they fail 
to adequately describe the subject matter, and that they should be 
replaced with terms better suited. as soon as namespaces 1.1 becomes a 
recommendation, might a reasonable implementor expect that "expanded 
QName" would be deprecated in favor of "expanded name". is there any 
reason to not do that now?

...

Received on Monday, 27 October 2003 19:52:21 UTC