- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:44:14 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10683 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com> 2010-09-28 14:44:13 UTC --- We've changed this convention several times over the years, the current WD reflects that history. The Namespaces Rec (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/) says "For a name N that is not in a namespace, the namespace name has no value" and uses this formula in other places. We currently use phrases like "non-null namespace URI", e.g. [XQuery] > Every user-defined function must be in a namespace--that is, every declared > function name must (when expanded) have a non-null namespace URI > [err:XQST0060]. Whatever terminology we use, we should create a definition that links it to the equivalent concept in the namespaces specification. We can borrow language from here: [XMLNames] > If there is a default namespace declaration in scope, the expanded name > corresponding to an unprefixed element name has the URI of the default > namespace as its namespace name. If there is no default namespace declaration > in scope, the namespace name has no value. The namespace name for an > unprefixed attribute name always has no value. In all cases, the local name > is local part (which is of course the same as the unprefixed name itself). It's clumsy to say that the namespace name of the QName of a function has no value. We currently speak of functions that are "in no namespace" - we could simply define that phrase. Definition: A name is *in no namespace* if the namespace part of its expanded name has no value, as defined in [XMLNames]. A function, element, or attribute is *in no namespace* if its name is in no namespace. Definition: A function, element, or attribute is *in a namespace* if its name is in in that namespace, as defined in [XMLNames]. We should definitely reduce the number of conventions for describing this one thing. -- 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 Tuesday, 28 September 2010 14:44:16 UTC