RE: Updated finding: QNames in Content

> I would prefer the finding to state that this is not OK, as I've
> already expressed to the XQuery working group.
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Nov/0189.html

Two interesting feedbacks from WG members on your original suggestion
need to be considered in this discussion:

Michael Kay wrote:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Nov/0192.html

"The functions in XPath 1.0/XSLT 1.0 already use the notion of
namespaces
for scoping function libraries. Since we need such a mechanism and need
to be backwards compatible with XPath 1.0/XSLT 1.0, there is really no
other choice."

Michael Rys wrote:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Nov/0199.html

"Some reasons why the functions are in the fn: namespace and not in the
no-namespace:

1. user's that write their own local functions in the prolog do most
likely not want to assign namespaces to them.
2. the namespace allows better version management for future versions
(breaking bug fixes etc.)."

Note that neither of the above are the official WGs response to your
comment.  We are still working on that.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
> Sent: January 12, 2004 11:27 AM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: Norman Walsh; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Updated finding: QNames in Content
> 
> At 7:36 AM -0800 1/12/04, Paul Cotton wrote:
> 
> >The XQuery/XPath specifications [1] use QNames to identify functions
in
> >these languages.  Since this is another example of a different use of
> >QNames it might be good if the finding could state that this is okay.
> 
> 
> The use of prefixes on functions and operators in XQuery is very
> confusing, especially since they tend not to be used at all. In fact,
> I found that when I simply removed all prefixes from functions and
> operators and all references to the functions and operators
> namespaces from my XQuery notes, everything was still accurate, still
> worked, and was more easily understood by students. If the prefixes
> aren't even necessary, why do we have them in the first place? I
> think this is a classic case of the mistaken urge to identify
> everything with a URI and namespace, whether it makes any sense to do
> so or not.
> 
> 
> --
> 
>    Elliotte Rusty Harold
>    elharo@metalab.unc.edu
>    Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
>    http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
> 
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaula
it
> A

Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 12:13:44 UTC