- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:29:27 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2747
Summary: wd-21: Canonical representation of QName/NOTATION values
Product: XML Schema
Version: 1.1 only
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status: NEW
Keywords: needsDrafting
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2
AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
ReportedBy: holstege@mathling.com
QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
The lexical representation of a QName/NOTATION value has the form "prefix:
localpart" (or "localpart"), and the value of a QName is a tuple {namespace,
localpart}. Then what's the canonical representation of a QName/NOTATION value?
How is the prefix (if any) picked? How is it guaranteed that the prefix is
always bound to the desired namespace?
Error concerning
Part 2
QName
Transition history
raised on 8 Dec 2004 by Sandy Gao (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-
schema-comments/2004OctDec/0031.html)
agreed on 29 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/
2005May/0000.html)
Decided to add a health warning about canonical forms.
Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 29 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-
schema-ig/2005May/0000.html)
agreement by reviewer on 29 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-
xml-schema-ig/2005May/0000.html)
Action history
Part 2 Editors
accepted on 29 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/
2005May/0000.html)
Editors to implement the health warning about canonical forms.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 21:29:30 UTC