RE: XML Infoset Comment Resolution: issue-query-*

> > then it should continue to have the foo prefix in scope
> > so that if the content (foo:bar) is interpreted as a QName, it is
> > interpreted correctly.
> 
> I find this to be outside of the scope of the Infoset proper. That
> foo:bar is interpreted as a QName is either guaranteed by XML Schema
> (and then the namespace association is part of the PSVI), or it is
> application specific.

That a particular string is interpreted as a QName is standard- or
application-specified.  Both XPath and XML Schemas specify contexts
in which strings are interpreted as QNames, and they specify that they
should be interpreted according to the binding in scope according
to XML Namespaces.  (It has nothing to do with the PSVI - for schemas
these names are interpreted in the schema itself and the pre-schema
instance.)  The Infoset provides the in-scope namespaces for the
benefit of standards that want to specify this interpretation of
QNames; a standard that wanted to interpret QNames some other way
would of course be free to so, but that would be contrary to
eisting practice.

> As such, this does not belong into the Infoset.

We decided it belonged to the Infoset because it supports something
multiple standards require.

> This is not clear based on the Infoset description and would be a
> requirement against both XSLT and XQuery.

This is what XSLT already does, when it says for the XML output method:

 NOTE: An XSLT processor may need to add namespace declarations in the
 course of outputting the result tree as XML.

> Let the applications deal with preserving the information for
> embedded QNames by using XML Schema.
...
> Again, If you have data that has semantics beyond XML1.0 plus
> namespaces, it belongs into a Post-X infoset. XML Schema gives you a
> QName datatype, which exactly gives you the semantics that you wish
> without bloating the Infoset.

But this was the intended interpretation all along, and as far as I
know all existing specifications that use QNames interpret them this
way.  We are just following existing practice.

-- Richard

Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 16:26:30 UTC