- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:00:49 -0600
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > Dan, > > On yesterday's TAG call, you said (from the draft minutes at [1]): > > "QName is inconsistently defined in Schema -- abc:xyz can denote two > distinct values at two points in a document, which is not consistent with > the statement that there is a mapping from lexical to value space." > > So, I thought I'd look at the specificaitons From the published working > draft of Schema 1.1 Datatypes [2]: > > "[Definition:] In this specification, a datatype has three properties: > > * A ·value space·, which is a set of values. > * A ·lexical space·, which is a set of ·literals· used to denote the > values. > * A small collection of functions, relations, and procedures > associated with the datatype. Included are equality and order relations > on the ·value space·, and a ·lexical mapping·, which is a function on the > ·lexical space· onto the ·value space·. > > [...] > > For some datatypes, notably QName and NOTATION, the mapping from lexical > representations to values is context-dependent..." > > So, while you (or maybe I) might prefer that the design were different, I > don't think it's fair to imply that the Recommendation is contradictory. > It makes quite clear that context-dependent lexical mappings are allowed. clear as mud, to me. "a function on the ·lexical space· onto the ·value space·" admits no context sensitivity. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 23:00:56 UTC