| CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:40:23 GMT
content-type: text/html
last-modified: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:50:22 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Sun, 09 Nov 2025 22:40:23 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98c99e7e3d7ec1b0
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: EXPIRED
set-cookie: __cf_bm=yYk61rc4uEjH3yHinyi11t7mp.OPCw_ssOlK0dMspeM-1760136023-1.0.1.1-pvxCCLYUfvtXBruTPl9_rF.h1AoRVFZtSSMeQq4EBribvovHrHB8DJ7beVT94PLXVEK00PruNwu4AZPupDRvM4_R1BWlKKBrmGeuuWU.hpA; path=/; expires=Fri, 10-Oct-25 23:10:23 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98c99e7e3d7ec1b0-BLR
content-encoding: gzip
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
[XPath 2.0] XSCH-XPATH-001 from Lisa Martin on 2004-02-15 (public-qt-comments@w3.org from February 2004)
[XPath 2.0] XSCH-XPATH-001
- From: Lisa Martin <lmartin@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:24:26 -0500
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc: W3C XML Schema WG <w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF2FB1E060.3E8A20E8-ON85256E3B.00625E92-85256E3B.006575EF@ca.ibm.com>
Dear Colleagues, This 2-part comment pertains to the Nov. 12 2003 version of XPath 2.0 [1]. [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/ Lisa Martin, on behalf of the XML Schema Working Group ---------------------------------------------------- Section 2.1.1 Static Context [Definition: In-scope type definitions. Each named type definition is identified either by a QName (for a named type) or by an implementation-dependent type identifier for an anonymous type. ... ] a. The use of "Each named type definition is identified either..." implies that anonymous types are considered "named type definitions" in this specification. Is this correct? If so, then constructor functions are defined for anonymous types - was that intended? If not, the first use of "named" in the definition should be dropped. b. WRT implementation-dependent type ids for anonymous types, we note that elsewhere (schema context path) QT defines names for anonymous types. Would it be appropriate to mandate their use in this case? We also note that discussions are ongoing between two WGs about harmonizing schema context paths and SCDs.
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2004 13:24:32 UTC