Revision of comment on SVG Tiny 1.2 from the i18n-wg

Dear SVG Working Group,

Considering our first comment on SVG Tiny 1.2 [1], we had some feedback 
from Murata Makoto, I have attached his mail below.  In  my  (personal) 
opinion, you should make it a requirement for the validation process of 
SVG Tiny 1.2. that the processor relies on a data type library which 
implements XML 1.1, see below "(implementation) Jing (2) attribute 
values or element contents".

Best, Felix.

[1] http://www.w3.org/International/2005/05/svg-tiny-review.html

>Felix,
>
>Thank you for your mail.  Here is my understanding of the 
>current status.
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>1. XML1.1-names in RELAX NG schemas
>
>Spec: Not allowed.
>
>Implementation(jing): Not allowed.
>
>2. XML1.1-names in XML documents
>
>Spec: Not allowed
>
>Implementation (jing)
>
>(1) element or attribute names
>
>Jing assumes that the XML parser tests well-formedness of element and
>attribute names.  Thus, <anyName/> matches every XML 1.1 names.
>
>(2) attribute values or element contents
>
>Jing simply uses implementations of XML Schema Part 2.  Thus, 
><element name="foo"><data type="NCName"/></element> matches 
><foo>&#X30fb;</foo> if the underlying WXS2 implementation 
>allows &#X30fb; as a name character.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I do not think W3C would like to publish schemas containing non-ASCII
>names.  If this assumption is true, I think that all what you actually 
>need is implementations of XML Schema Part 2 that allow XML-1.1-names.
>
>If we would like to write RNG schemas using XML1.1-names, we have 
>to create a new version of RELAX NG and change implementations 
>accordingly.  
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Cheers,
> -- MURATA Makoto <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
>