[xquery-talk] Should library modules URIs be unique?

[Michael Kay]

I hope we can get the rules changed, but under the rules as they are at
present, it would certainly be unwise to have two modules sharing the same
module namespace, since they will never be able to reference each other.
 
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/


  _____  

From: talk-bounces at xquery.com [mailto:talk-bounces at xquery.com] On Behalf Of
McBeath, Darin W. (ELS)
Sent: 18 January 2005 13:26
To: talk at xquery.com
Subject: [xquery-talk] Should library modules URIs be unique?



Based on my interpretation of the Oct 2004 W3C XQuery Working Draft (the
latest), I'm starting to think it might be an advisable best practice to
identify each library module with a unique URI (namespace).  Below, I have
extracted some text from the W3C draft.

 

* It is a static error <http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/>  [err:XQ0047
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/> ] if more than one module import in a Prolog
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/>  specifies the same target namespace.

* It is a static error [err:XQ0056 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/> ] if the
target namespace of the modules to be imported is the same as the target
namespace of the importing module. It is a static
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/> error [err:XQ0059
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/> ] 

 

Based on these statements, it would be my opinion that it would be wise to
uniquely identify all library module URIs.  Otherwise, you may run into
problems in the future since you may not be able to import a given library
module due to a namespace conflict.   I also realize that this is a Working
Draft and is subject to change, but I'm creating library modules today and
trying to identify some 'best practices' that should work now and in the
future.

 

I would be interested in the opinions of others on this topic..

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://xquery.com/pipermail/talk/attachments/20050118/e82c38fe/attachment-0001.htm