[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
UName Re: I need a name
- From: james anderson <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- 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