- From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:30:51 GMT
- To: xml-names-editor@w3.org
- Cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>
I'm just forwarding this to the (public) namespaces comment list so that I can reference it from the disposition of comments document. -- Richard ---- Start of forwarded text ---- > Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021204122314.0386fe50@mail.verizon.net> > Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:30:27 -0500 > To: w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org, Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> > From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com> > Subject: Re: XML Query WG Feedback on Sept WD of Namespaces in XML 1.1 > > I would like to push back on the handling of one issue in: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-query-wg/2002Nov/0529.html > > > > 4. We dislike the following note: > > > > > > Though they are not themselves reserved, it is inadvisable to use > > > prefixed names whose LocalPart begins with the letters x, m, l, as > > > these names would be reserved if used without a prefix. > > > > > > It does not clearly state a concern, and the term "inadvisable" is not > > > clearly defined anywhere - does that mean vendors have to support such > > > names, issue warnings, or may they decide not to support them? The use of > > > adjectives without well defined meaning does not lead to an interoperable > > > world. > > > >Summary: rejected > > > >We believe that "inadvisable" carries the intended, non-normative, > >meaning, and that the statement that they are not reserved makes clear > >their normative status. Processors must accept them (though they can > >of course issue a warning if they wish). > > I still do not know what "inadvisable" means. Are you saying it is bad > style because using such names in the default namespace it is confusing for > people reading the XML? I suggest you say something concrete. > > Don't let this comment hold you up - progress the document. If you can, > though, I think saying something concrete would improve the document. > > Jonathan > > ---- End of forwarded text ----
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 18:30:55 UTC