OK, so I think we have 3 votes for QName and 1 fence sitter. Any other votes on this issue? Otherwise I think we should go for QName. steve.. Donal K. Fellows wrote:
William Lee wrote:
I agreed that Qname type can be used, however, it's been a controversial type to use throughout the history of XSD, because interpretation of a QName value needs contextual information (the enclosing elements and their xmlns declaration). <jsdl:JobDefinition ...> ... <jsdl:CPUArchitecture>myns:sparc</jsdl:CPUArchitecture> ... </jsdl:JobDefinition>
For the parser, it needs to resolve the "myns" namespace prefix from the enclosing elements in order to deduce whether it's in the jsdl namespace or others.
That's why I wanted it. :^) The aim is to make those extensible enumerations where people can add their own elements but must do so in a way that won't tread on where we might wish to put our toes in future. The other sensible way of doing this is the informal technique used in specifications like CIM, where you just have a common prefix to all the values that you define. But if you're doing that, you might as well formalize it in terms of common XML rules.
In terms of parsing, I think both SAX and DOM have support for making this sort of processing easy...?
Donal.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr A. Stephen McGough ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Research Associate, Imperial College London, Department of Computing, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK tel: +44 (0)207-594-8310 fax: +44 (0)207-581-8024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Assistant Warden, West Wing, Beit Hall, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BB tel: +44 (0)207-594-9910 ------------------------------------------------------------------------