[Bug 3242] "a unique namespace"

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3242


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |needsReview




------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-09-27 04:31 -------
Agreed that the sentence "Each ·user-defined· datatype is also associated 
with a unique namespace" is problematic.  Not only does it invite the reader
to wonder what the word 'unique' is doing loitering in this neighborhood,
it also suggests falsely that user-defined datatypes always have a target
namespace.  (Life would perhaps be simpler if unqualified names were
in a sort of special anonymous default namespace, but they are not.  Complaints
to the editors of the Namespaces Rec, please.)

Agreed also that the following sentence is awkward.  I propose the following
revision.  Delete the paragraph which currently reads:

    Each ·user-defined· datatype is also associated with a unique
    namespace.  However, ·user-defined· datatypes do not come from the
    namespace defined by this specification; rather, they come from
    the namespace of the schema in which they are defined (see XML
    Representation of Schemas in [XML Schema Part 1: Structures]).

Replace it with:

    Each ·user-defined· datatype MAY also be associated with a
    namespace.  However, ·user-defined· datatypes are not defined in
    the XML Schema namespace (http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema);
    rather, they are associated with the target namespace of the
    schema in which they are defined (see XML Representation of
    Schemas in [XML Schema Part 1: Structures]).

Implicitly, this wording proposes the phrase "is defined in" (or
just "is in", except that many readers will want "is in" to apply
only to names, not type definitions) or "is associated with" for
the relation of a simple type definition or datatype to its
target namespace.

I'm setting the status of this issue to needsReview, but it should be
noted that this wording proposal has NOT had the normal editorial
review; the other editors should thus not be held accountable for it.

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 04:32:00 UTC