W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Proposed TAG Finding: Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Ident ifiers in Content

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:24:45 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <873cukgazm.fsf@nwalsh.com>

/ Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com> was heard to say:
| Here is one possible interpretation of the "xsl:output method" design
| pattern:
| <xsl:output
|   method = "xml" | "html" | "text" | qname-but-not-ncname
|   ...
| All possible values of this attribute are considered QNames. The values,
| here "xml", "html", and "text" are considered to be in the XSLT namespace,
| which is considered to be in scope as a default for that attribute value.

I agree that these are all QNames, but I don't think the values 'xml',
'html', and 'text' are in the XSL namespace by default, they are in
the null namespace by default.

Regardless of whether they are in the null namespace or the current
default namespace or the XSLT namespace by default, I think the
architectural recommendation that you are challenging is simply

If you don't have a PSVI, or if the data type was not successfully
validated, the value is a string regardless of how it was declared in
the PSVI.

If you do have the results of a successful validation episode, you
know explicitly whether it is a QName or not, regardless of what other
possibilities might have existed in the union type.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | Don't limit your child to your own learning,
XML Standards Architect | for he was born in another time.--Rabbinic
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | Saying
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 13:25:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC