- From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:28:50 +0100
- To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> > > Here are some suggestions: > > > > 1. Clarify whether the namespace URI of a QName that is > written with > > no prefix is the null namespace or the default namespace, > or whether > > it's entirely up to the application to decide. Possibly, > allow this to be controlled via a facet. > > Where is clarification required -- I wasn't aware there was > any area where is was not clear that unprefixed QNames are > default-namespace qualified. The only thing that Schema Part 2 (section 3.2.18) says about the mapping of the lexical space to the value space for QNames is the Note: "The mapping between literals in the ·lexical space· and values in the ·value space· of QName requires a namespace declaration to be in scope for the context in which QName is used." It says nothing about whether the mapping is done using the conventions for element names (no prefix => default namespace) or the conventions for attribute names (no prefix => no namespace). One of the first applications to make extensive use of QNames in attribute values was XSLT 1.0, and it uses the (no prefix => no namespace) convention, so I am surprised to hear you say that Schema only supports the (no prefix => default namespace) convention. This certainly confirms my belief that it needs to support both: and above all, to be clear as to what it does support. Michael Kay Software AG
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 12:29:00 UTC