Code review comment for lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/new-jsoniq
Revision history for this message
| Ghislain Fourny (gislenius) wrote | # |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
> > > Why would you need a qualified value if the option itself is already
> > qualified?
> >
> > I guess because the option name and the option value may not live in the
> same
> > namespace.
>
> Why not? It's not as if you do schema validation on the options and their
> values. The option needs to be qualified to distinguish it from XQuery
> options, but the value needs not. And the validation is done entirely in the
> code so there is no schema validation.
Technically, it is up to us - does the op:enable option accept QName or string values? If it is strings, I agree. If it is QNames, the namespace is important I think.