- From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:42:06 -0800
- To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>, "Daniela Florescu" <danielaf@bea.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
I do not think that we can find a usable way to make an anonymous type a QName. This request seems like a vacuous simplification, in that it claims to make the specification simpler but in truth makes the system more complex. Best regards Michael (speaking for myself) > -----Original Message----- > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kay > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 2:39 AM > To: 'Daniela Florescu'; public-qt-comments@w3.org > Subject: RE: [DM] BEA_005 > > > > > > We should simplify the data model and request the name of a type (even > > anonymous) to be a legal Qname. > > > > Since there is no way for an application to determine the name of an > anonymous type, this would be (a) an unnecessary constraint on > implementations, and (b) an untestable assertion. > > Of course, if your comment requesting that this property be exposed to > applications is accepted, then this objection disappears. > > Michael Kay
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 05:42:15 UTC