This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Section 3.2.19 of the datatypes spec states: "[Definition:] NOTATION represents the NOTATION attribute type from [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)]. The value space of NOTATION is the set QNames of notations declared in the current schema. The lexical space of NOTATION is the set of all names of notations declared in the current schema (in the form of QNames)." Note that the "lexical space" is "the set of all names of notations declared ..." Here "lexical space" is a set of strings, but "names of notations" are QNames, which are not strings (and they don't/can't give strings either, because QNames don't have canonical reps). IMO, since "the set of QNames of notations declared" is already mentioned for the value space of NOTATION, it's sufficient to say "the set of strings that match the QName production of [Namespaces in XML]" for the lexical space. Erratum E2-34 did clarify NOTATION's value space, but this issue was not covered. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0055.html
At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg, the Working Group discussed this issue. While there was some regret over the decision, in the end the Working Group decided not to take further action on this issue in XML Schema 1.1. The rationale for the decision (as I understand it) was roughly as follows. This item is similar in some respects to others (bug 2088, bug 2251, bug 2075, bug 2314); all involve datatypes whose values are in some sense correct only if appropriate declarations (or other constructs) are in scope. It would be good to have a clearer account of such datatypes, but while the lack of a clear account is highly visible in the spec, it does not seem to cause serious problems for many people in practice. Since we don't seem to have any immediate prospect of achieving greater clarity, and the problem does not seem acute for users, it seems unwise to delay Datatypes 1.1 for further work in this area. This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED / LATER at that time, but apparently was not. I am marking it that way now, to reduce confusion.