• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 18:05:05 +0200

i've sent objections on this topic to the respective authors/bodies for
the schema and query model specs. as yet without success. the prevalent
naming (QName) makes absolutely no sense for the domain (namespace-name,
local-name) so it is good to hear another voice wondering why the
misnomer is so popular.

i'm at a complete loss why one does not simply use the terminology which
appeared in the original recommendation "universal name", or UName for short.

...

Richard Tobin wrote:
> 
> Does any spec give a name to the (namespace name, local name) pair that
> identifies an element or attribute?  It's not a qualified name - that's
> the string that appears in a document which is expanded into such a
> pair by looking up the prefix or using the default namespace.
> 
> The Schema Datatypes spec views these pairs as the value space of
> QNames (and the lexical space is QNames in the sense of the Namespaces
> spec).  But that's hardly a handy name.
> 
> -- Richard
>

• References:
  • I need a name
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: I need a name
• Next by Date: RE: I need a name
• Previous by thread: Re: I need a name
• Next by thread: Re: I need a name
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread