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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:26 PM
> To: Michael Rys; Richard Tobin; www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org
> Cc: pgrosso@arbortext.com; lehors@us.ibm.com; Paul Cotton; Jonathan
> Marsh; W3C XML Query WG (E-mail) (E-mail)
> Subject: 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.) 

Yes. But this can be calculated based on the ancestor tree and not all
inscope namespaces need to be carried around. I think we argue in
circles here.

> 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.

Again, both solutions and interpretation will provide that.

> > As such, this does not belong into the Infoset.
> 
> We decided it belonged to the Infoset because it supports something
> multiple standards require.

The information will be there, it just does not need to be moved around
in the current way, since the move will appear after those standards
apply.

> > 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.

But this is different. This means that if a QName requires a namespace
declaration that has not been added yet, XSLT may add it. From this, I
do not see any requirement for providing all inscope namespaces at every
level or to carry them around in case of copies/moves.

> > 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.

I am not convinced.

Best regards
Michael
 
> -- Richard
>

Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 18:34:50 UTC