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

Mostly, I think this is very good.  One significant concern, somewhat 
related to Rick's, and another minor point. 

---
Significant:  recommendation #3 states [1]:

        "Specifications should not use tokens 
         that are syntactically QNames (that 
         match the QName production) unless 
         they are also semantically QNames."

This seems to preclude all sorts of sensible usage that has nothing to do 
with namespaces or QNames.  Perhaps I work in an industry where we use 
colons in our application data:

        partnumber:property

or whatever.  #3 seems to rule out a specification for a vocabulary that 
carried such data as an element or attribute value.  Suggestion:  drop #3.

---
Minor: recommendation #5 says:

        "Element or attribute values that contain 
         a single QName should be declared with
         the xs:QName type."

This could be taken to imply that some schema language or typing mechanism 
should always be used with XML.  I think it's quite coherent to have an 
XML vocabulary for which no schema is used (or in which the schema 
language does not use the W3C datatypes), and still to use values that are 
semantically QNames.  XPath doesn't need XML schema to do its work.

Maybe that should be reworded as:

        "When using W3C XML Schema datatypes [ref 
         to Schema part 2], Element or attribute 
         values that contain a single QName should 
         be declared with the xs:QName type."

---

Thank you for considering these concerns.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html#sec-archrec

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

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 17:24:51 UTC