- From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:57:16 +0100
- To: <mary.holstege@marklogic.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Henry Zongaro'" <zongaro@ca.ibm.com>
> The Schema WG thanks you for this response. We find the > clarification as a > serialization error an improvement and accept that. We > continue to be deeply > troubled, however, by the fact that data models with xs:QNames fail to > serialize and therefore validate correctly. We are heartened > by our knowledge > that the Query/XSL Working groups have continued to discuss > that matter, and > encourage them in that effort. I think we need to work together to find a solution to the QName problem. It's wretchedly difficult having a data type where the value in the value space has no context-independent lexical representation. Adding the possibility of representing QName values in a lexical notation such as uri##local would greatly ease the pain. (We choose choose a format that can potentially be used anywhere in XML, XML Schema, XSLT, XPath, or XQuery that lexical QNames are currently used). Michael Kay
Received on Friday, 21 May 2004 15:57:50 UTC