- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:40:26 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, newsml-2@yahoogroups.com
Henry, > Sorry, I strongly disagree. It's up to language designers to decide > whether they want to give things simple names, in namespaces, or not. > If the decide to do that, as XML Schema did for element and attribute > declarations and type definitions, or as XPath did for functions, then > QNames are the _correct_ short syntax, precisely because the semantics > of a QName is an expanded name, i.e. a name in a namespace. Mmm...ok, I take it back! Where someone just wanted a 'Name' and decided to opt for 'QName' instead, then you are right, that is perfectly valid. I had mistakenly reduced 'Name' and 'QName' in the XML spec to 'something that is used for the naming of attributes and elements', but as you say, they are merely tokens that happen to be used for constructing element and attribute names...but they can just as easily be used for other things. Apologies... ;) Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck CEO x-port.net Ltd. e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ Download our XForms processor from http://www.formsPlayer.com/
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 10:40:43 UTC