RE: Editorial comments for Part 1, section 1-3

Well, what the Namespaces Rec also says is:

3. Qualified Names
[Definition:] In XML documents conforming to this specification, some 
names (constructs corresponding to the nonterminal Name) may be given as qualified names, defined as follows: 

Qualified Name


[6] 
QName
::= 
(Prefix ':')? LocalPart
[7] 
Prefix
::= 
NCName
[8] 
LocalPart
::= 
NCName


The Prefix provides the namespace prefix part of the qualified name, and must be associated with a namespace URI 
reference in a namespace declaration. [Definition:] The LocalPart provides the local part of the qualified name. 
Note that the prefix functions only as a placeholder for a namespace name. Applications should use the 
namespace name, not the prefix, in constructing names whose scope extends 
beyond the containing document.

Although in Schemas we used the term Qualified Name to mean {uri,local}, I 
later discovered that the Namespaces rec. comes much closer to using it 
for {prefix, local}.  See above.  The recommendation further introduces 
the term "Expanded {Element,Attribute} Name" [1], but uses it specifically 
in the form of an element that carries the uri and local part. 

So, bottom line is:  while I personally like the term qualified name, I'm 
not sure it's consistent with the terminology in the Namespaces 
Recommendation.  Hence my suggestion that we at least introduce our use of 
it. 
Noah
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#ns-expnames

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
12/16/2002 12:39 AM

 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Nilo Mitra" 
<EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, "Marc 
Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, 
"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <www-archive@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Editorial comments for Part 1, section 1-3


Hmm, I have always read the term "XML qualified name" in the context 
stated in the description in the namespace spec:
 
"Note that the prefix functions only as a placeholder for a namespace 
name. Applications should use the namespace name, not the prefix, in 
constructing names whose scope extends beyond the containing document."
 
I vaquely remember that the WG agreed on using this term some time ago but 
I can't find the reference anywhere. Can somebody remember the details?
 
The potential problem by using the old phrase is that it is not clear 
whether or how the "combination" should be computed: because we don't say: 
should they be concatinated, or something else?
 
In any case, we use the term "XML qualified name" fairly consistently so 
if we have problems in section 2.4, then we may have it in other places as 
well. In any case, I agree that it is an editorial edit.
 
Henrik
 
________________________________

From:             noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 
[mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
Sent:             Fri 13-Dec-02 20:59 
To:               Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
Cc:               Anish Karmarkar; Nilo Mitra; David Fallside; Marc 
Hadley; Martin Gudgin; Jean-Jacques Moreau; www-archive@w3.org 
Subject:                  Re: Editorial comments for Part 1, section 1-3   

 

I know I'm late going through these, but I think it's appropriate to
continue editorial refinements as we move between CR and PR.   Overall, I
think your proposed improvements are terrific.  There's one I would roll
back (presuming it happened:  I'm offline and can't get to the latest CR
draft):

You propose:

* S2.4, P1: Change "by the combination of [local name] and [namespace]"
to "by the XML qualified name"

Though I like this use of "qualified name" in principle, I don't think
we've introduced it in a rigorous manner, have we?    Lacking that, I
think the original is less ambiguous.  Some might read the revised as
applying to the {prefix,lname} pair.  I'd revert to the original.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------