In recent posts to public-qt-comments@w3.org
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Aug/0004.html) and <A HREF="mailto:www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org">www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org</A>
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JulSep/0031.ht
ml) I drew attention to a seeming discrepancy between the definition of an
XML namespace in the Namespaces in XML 1.0 Recommendation (where it is limited
to element type names and attribute names) and the use of "XML namespaces" in
W3C XML Schema, XQuery, XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 to contain datatype and function
names.
I appreciate that the seeming discrepancy may be "put right" by altering the
definition of an XML namespace in the Namespaces in XML 1.0 Rec (and the 1.1
CR).
However, since the question of what an XML namespace might or might not
legitimately contain may impact on many XML-related technologies as well as
potentially impacting on current TAG namespace-related considerations I thought it
appropriate that TAG consider whether they should define what are the limits of
what an "XML namespace" may legitimately contain.
Andrew Watt
"XHTML 2.0 - the W3C leading the Web to its full potential ... to implement
yesterday's technology tomorrow"