Re: [XPath 2.0] XSCH-XPATH-001

Hi Jonathan,
Regarding comment 1b, we do not believe it's an editorial comment.    The
specific substantive request being made is that QT consider using schema
context paths as the (no longer implementation-dependent) type ids for
anonymous types.
Thanks  -

On behalf of the XML Schema WG,
Lisa Martin



                                                                           
             Jonathan Robie                                                
             <jwrobie@mindspri                                             
             ng.com>                                                    To 
                                       Lisa Martin/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA       
             02/16/2004 05:49                                           cc 
             PM                        public-qt-comments@w3.org, W3C XML  
                                       Schema WG                           
                                       <w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org>          
             Please respond to                                     Subject 
                  jwrobie              Re: [XPath 2.0] XSCH-XPATH-001      
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Lisa Martin wrote:

>Dear Colleagues,
>
>This 2-part comment pertains to the Nov. 12 2003 version of XPath 2.0 [1].
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/
>
>Lisa Martin, on behalf of the XML Schema Working Group
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>Section 2.1.1 Static Context
>   [Definition:  In-scope type definitions.    Each named type definition
>   is identified either by a QName (for a named type) or by an
>   implementation-dependent type identifier for an anonymous type.  ... ]
>
>   a.  The use of "Each named type definition is identified either..."
>implies that anonymous types are considered "named type definitions"  in
>this specification.   Is this correct?   If so, then constructor functions
>are defined for anonymous types - was that intended?   If not, the first
>use of "named" in the definition should be dropped.
>
>
Hi Lisa,

I think the placement of parentheses is significant here:

>   [Definition: *In-scope type definitions.* Each named type definition
> is identified either by a QName (for a *named type*) or by an
> implementation-dependent
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#dt-implementation-dependent> type
> identifier (for an *anonymous type*). The in-scope type definitions
> include the predefined types as described in *2.4.1 Predefined Types*
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#id-predefined-types>. ]

So there are two kinds of types - named types and anonymous types.

>b. WRT implementation-dependent type ids for anonymous types, we note that
>elsewhere (schema context path) QT defines names for anonymous types.
Would
>it be appropriate to mandate their use in this case? We also note that
>discussions are ongoing between two WGs about harmonizing schema context
>paths and SCDs.
>
>
These are not "names" in our terminology - they are expressions used for
matching types. Is there a specific request here?

For now, I am classifying this comment as editorial.

Jonathan

Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2004 09:14:43 UTC