> > > 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. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/new-jsoniq/+merge/162375 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders Post to : zorba-coders@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
