[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: more QName madness

• To: "'michael.h.kay@n...'" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Subject: RE: more QName madness
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:00:40 -0800
• Cc: "Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@l...>

>   - require XML parsers to report the expanded name to the 
> application,
> not the abbreviated name or the prefix declaration.

Question 1: Would DOM builders have to do the reverse?  

Question 2: Why can't parsers implement this as a option now?   

Question 3: I think must be missing a clue somewhere...  is it a fact that
certain applications rely on the original QName, and not the (URI + local
name)?

Question 4: What is the correct term for (URI + local name): 'universal
name' or 'expanded name'?

What's the difference, if any, between the term 'universal name' and
'expanded name' ? 

Both terms are used in the Namespaces rec, but are indirectly defined:

Universal name:
"document constructs should have universal names, whose scope extends beyond
their containing document. "

Expanded name:

" ... by requiring that no element have two attributes whose expanded names
are equivalent, i.e. have the same attribute-value pairs".  

I'm guessing 'expanded name' is an implementation of 'universal name'.

(BTW, this is why I think it's important to provide a glossary of terms in
all Recommendations.)

• Prev by Date: Re: dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
• Next by Date: RE: To be a standard or not to be a standard
• Previous by thread: RE: more QName madness
• Next by thread: RE: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread