Re: QNames in examples

On Friday 04 April 2003 13:40, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> I have been looking at the issue of QNames in the examples, they appear
> to me to be correct. 

My mistake, the in-scope default namespace is declared for the value space, 
and the lexical value does not require the prefix: it's optional.

Regarding the prefix in the running text, in XENC I used the convention that 
the xenc element/attribute types were unprefixed and the external types 
(i.e., dsig) were prefixed, both of which corresponded to the examples. 
XENC and DSIG identifiers are URIs, so that's what the examples showed 
though in the running text I'd use an entity (e.g., &dsig;KeyInfo).

Those conventions work well for element/attribute types but can be confusing 
for QNames that are used as identifires. The SOAP primer simply uses 
prefixes for everything; WSDL is specified mostly as an Infoset 
description, but in its table and examples it uses the prefixes [1].

Which ever way we go, we should strive for some consistency such that one 
can search for and see these things consistently in the spec. So that would 
mean either all XKMS types are prefixed or not. In tables of identifiers, I 
like the prefixes (or it should be made clear all those types in the table 
have certain NS declarations in scope) but in the examples I don't like to 
see the "xkms:" prefix anywhere... I suppose I prefer the former to the 
latter ... ?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12/#language-extensibility

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 14:21:33 UTC