2747 2006-01-20 21:29:27 +0000 wd-21: Canonical representation of QName/NOTATION values 2006-01-20 22:40:55 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 holstege cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 7911 0 holstege 2006-01-20 21:29:27 +0000 The lexical representation of a QName/NOTATION value has the form "prefix: localpart" (or "localpart"), and the value of a QName is a tuple {namespace, localpart}. Then what's the canonical representation of a QName/NOTATION value? How is the prefix (if any) picked? How is it guaranteed that the prefix is always bound to the desired namespace? Error concerning Part 2 QName Transition history raised on 8 Dec 2004 by Sandy Gao (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml- schema-comments/2004OctDec/0031.html) agreed on 29 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/ 2005May/0000.html) Decided to add a health warning about canonical forms. Acknowledgment cycle announced by group on 29 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml- schema-ig/2005May/0000.html) agreement by reviewer on 29 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c- xml-schema-ig/2005May/0000.html) Action history Part 2 Editors accepted on 29 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/ 2005May/0000.html) Editors to implement the health warning about canonical forms. 7936 1 holstege 2006-01-20 22:40:55 +0000 Part of omnibus proposal: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.omnibus.20050831.html Accepted with amendments finally at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/09/xml-schema-ftf-minutes.html#d0e2835