W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: xml:id Last Call comment from i18n

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:54:49 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20050203104557.040a2390@localhost>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-xml-id@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org, "'Architecture Domain'" <w3t-arch@w3.org>

Hello Norm,

Many thanks for fixing this so quickly.

This brought up a misunderstanding about XML Namespaces 1.1 on my side.
I was of the impression that XML Namespaces 1.1 was fixing some problems
with XML Namespaces independently of XML 1.0/1.1, such as officially
allowing IRIs in Namespace URIs, and so on.

Looking at XML Namespaces 1.1, I discovered that it's indeed very easy
to get such an impression. One has to go to Section 7, Conformance of
Documents, to find this stated: "This specification applies to XML 1.1
documents.". (A careful observer may also get a hunch about this from
the examples in section 6.)

If Namespaces in XML 1.1 ever gets updated, please make sure that such
fundamental dependencies are clearly called out at the very start of
the document (Abstract, Status, Intro,...). Assuming that just because
the numbers are the same, people will naturally understand that these
go together just doesn't work out in the industry we live in, where
very often dependent products are numbered independently.

Regards,    Martin.

At 02:08 05/02/03, Norman Walsh wrote:
 >/ "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org> was heard to say:
 >| We note that the definition of the value of an xml:id attribute is
 >| defined only in terms of a valid NCName as defined by XML 1.0. The
 >| definition for NCName in XML 1.1 is different.
 >|
 >| We think this consitutes a major defect in the spec in its own
 >| right, but it also has significant internationalization implications
 >| for users of XML 1.1.
 >|
 >| Please specify that the valid value is different in the case of XML
 >| 1.0 and XML 1.1.
 >
 >It was always our intent that the correct version of NCName was
 >to be used; we explicitly called out XMLNames 1.0 and XMLNames 1.1 to
 >make this point.
 >
 >However, your comment makes it clear that we were not explicit enough.
 >We have changed the first bullet in Section 4 so that it now reads:
 >
 >  * The normalized value of the attribute is an NCName according to
 >    the Namespaces in XML Recommendation which has the same version as
 >    the document in which this attribute occurs (NCName for XML 1.0, or
 >    NCName for XML 1.1).
 >
 >Where the parenthetical NCName's are correctly hyperlinked to to the
 >appropriate Namespaces in XML Recommendation.
 >
 >Please let me know if this satisfies your comment.
 >
 >(Our CR decision call is at 9a EST on Friday 4 Feb so a prompt
 >reply would be most appreciated.)
 >
 >                                        Be seeing you,
 >                                          norm
 >
 >P.S. This change will be reflected in the proposed CR draft at
 >http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/02/CR-xml-id-20050208/ sometime within
 >the next few hours.
 >
 >--
 >Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
 >NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
 >recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
 >Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
 >If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
 >reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
 >
 > 
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 02:13:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:49 GMT