5250 2007-11-05 19:05:41 +0000 Prefix as part of xs:QName value space 2008-06-13 23:49:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED LATER cluster: QNames needsAgreement P1 normal --- 1 mike cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 17595 0 mike 2007-11-05 19:05:41 +0000 XDM varies the mapping from lexical space defined in XML Schema 1.0 in two ways: by retaining the timezone information from dates and times, and by retaining the prefix from QNames and NOTATIONs. XML Schema 1.1 fixes the first problem by keeping the timezone as part of the value and then ignoring it when doing equality matching. It would seem to be useful to adopt the same strategy to fix the second problem: retain the prefix as part of the value space for xs:QName and xs:NOTATION, but take no account of it in the equality relation. I realize this is related to a number of other open issues concerning QNames (search Bugzilla for QName in Schema Part 2). My general feeling from a quick scan of these issues is that this change will not make any of those known problems any harder to solve, and may make some of them easier. 20070 1 cmsmcq 2008-05-09 19:56:54 +0000 On our telcon today, the WG classified this issue today as needsAgreement. No one argued that making this change would be a bad idea, but there was concern over possible cost and possibly unpropitious cost/benefit ratio. And the chair warned that in view of the calendar the passage of time, and the editorial backlog, it is not certain that we will get changes drafted and agreed for all items classed needsDrafting, let alone other items, so that most items marked needsAgreement are at risk of being closed without change with the disposition LATER or WONTFIX. 20467 2 cmsmcq 2008-06-13 23:44:53 +0000 The Working Group discussed this issue on its call today. There was some sympathy with this idea, but we did not feel that the community would be well served by delaying the XSD 1.1 spec further to work out the ramifications of the proposal. So with a certain ambivalence the WG agreed to close this with a disposition of LATER. Michael, as the originator of the issue, would you please signal your acceptance of the disposition of this issue by closing the bug report, or your dissatisfaction by reopening it? Thank you.