This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The XQ31 spec defines a list of reserved namespaces. This list is repeated in several places: * http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace * http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema * http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance * http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions * http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/math * http://www.w3.org/2012/xquery Sometimes they are called "reserved" (in para 2.5.5.7 and 4.15), sometimes not (in 4.18 Function Declarations they are not called "reserved", nor in the error description for XQST0045). I think the following are candidates to be included in this list: * http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/map * http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/array * http://www.w3.org/2005/xqt-errors * http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/ * http://www.w3.org/2010/xslt-xquery-serialization And possibly, with the introduction of fn:transform() in F&O 3.1, we should consider adding the XSLT namespace as well: * http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform In addition, if it is not too late considering the current CR status, to group these together and use a TERMDEF, to prevent the repetition?
This was fixed in passing when I addressed the same comment in Bug 29170.
Can you elaborate a little bit? The referred to bug seems to be about the text of the error. Was a decision made on all these namespaces, or did you (or the WG) decide to include a part of them? Was the XSL namespace added for reasons of interaction with fn:transform, or was it left unreserved?
(disregard my prev. comment, I think I have now seen the internal draft update, which reorganizes this a bit). I see that the list has been upgraded to the following: * http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace * http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema * http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance * http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions * http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/math * http://www.w3.org/2012/xquery * http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/array * http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/map That leaves: * http://www.w3.org/2005/xqt-errors * http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/ * http://www.w3.org/2010/xslt-xquery-serialization * http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform Perhaps the xmlns namespace does not fit in this list because it is already covered by other errors, or it could be included for completion. I am not sure if all the others deserve a "reserved" status. If I compare it with XSLT, the Errors namespace is reserved there (and of course the XSLT namespace). The Serialization namespace is up for debate. I see no harm in either including or excluding them, but we should make an informed decision. If the policy has been to reserve namespaces that have special meaning in (aspects of) the specs, then I think all of them should be included.
(In reply to Abel Braaksma from comment #3) > That leaves: > > * http://www.w3.org/2005/xqt-errors > * http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/ > * http://www.w3.org/2010/xslt-xquery-serialization > * http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform This would introduce an incompatibility with XQuery 3.0, and we don't want to do that.