W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2009

[Bug 6513] [XQuery] inconsistent terminology in definition of derives-from()

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:01:04 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1LTnBQ-0002rC-R2@wiggum.w3.org>


--- Comment #3 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>  2009-02-02 01:01:04 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think that using "known" to mean "present in the ISSD" is unfortunate, since
> the whole idea behind the rules in 2.5.4 is that the processor may have
> knowledge of types that have not been explicitly imported, and may use this
> knowledge.


> So rather than using "known" more widely, I would prefer to use a more
> helpful term like "declared".

I'd be in favour of a better term than "known", but I don't think
"declared" is it, because I can easily imagine a type being declared
(in a schema somewhere) but not present in the ISSD. Instead, I think
the clearest abbreviation would be "in scope". That is:

    AT is in scope  (or, AT is an in-scope type)
    AT is a schema type found/defined in the 'in-scope schema definitions'

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 01:01:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:26 UTC