W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: FW: anyURI in W3C XML Schema 1.1

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:01:59 +0900
Message-ID: <4CAAF797.8000807@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: "'public-i18n-core'" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Hello Makoto, others,

I'm not sure I understand the problem here.
I'm looking at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlschema11-2-20091203/#anyURI.

Makoto, it seems that you may be referring to the following text:

 >>>>
3.3.18.1 Value Space

The value space of anyURI is the set of finite-length sequences of zero 
or more characters (as defined in [XML]) that ·match· the Char 
production from [XML].

3.3.18.2 Lexical Mapping

The ·lexical space· of anyURI is the set of finite-length sequences of 
zero or more characters (as defined in [XML]) that ·match· the Char 
production from [XML].
 >>>>

This is indeed extremely open-ended. However, when reading all the text 
at the above location, there are careful notes that use wording such as 
"[RFC 3987] or its successor(s) in the IETF Standards Track". LEIRIs are 
also mentioned, but I'm happy the main focus is on IRIs, not LEIRIs, 
because LEIRIs are just about "We forgot to prohibit some things 
explicitly, so now we have to tolerate them even if they are really bad 
ideas that you don't want to use if you can avoid it."

To me, this looks like a careful design decision: Do not try to define 
syntax restrictions for something that's defined elsewhere.

A somewhat similar approach has been taken for language tags, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlschema11-2-20091203/#language
In that case, there is a very generic grammar, but not the more specific 
grammar that is currently in force.

These datatypes also come with facets that allow restrictions. That 
would make it possible for any application of XML Schema to be more 
specific if they think they can be more restrictive.

I guess there must be several good reasons for these design decisions 
(the main one from my point of view is making specs more independent of 
each other), but of course there may also drawbacks.

Makoto, it might help us if you are more specific about the problems you 
see.

Regards,   Martin.


On 2010/09/30 23:55, Richard Ishida wrote:
> Any comments for Murata-san?
>
> From: Makoto [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com]
> Sent: 21 September 2010 01:11
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> Subject: Re: anyURI in W3C XML Schema 1.1
> Importance: High
>
> Yes, please.  I am tring to improve
> I18n of OOXML open packaging
> convention.  I have thought  that
> LEIRIs should be a basis, but now
> XSD 1.1 appears to claim it shouldn't.
>
> Cheers,
> Makoto
>
>
>>> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp]
>>> Sent: 20 September 2010 15:13
>>> To: Richard Ishida
>>> Cc: Murata
>>> Subject: xsd:anyURI in W3C XML Schema 1.1
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> It appears that the latest draft of W3C XML Schema 1.1 Part 2 allows
>>> absolutely any thing as xsd:anyURI.  I think that  xsd:anyURI should
>>> allow LEIRIs and nothing else.  Does the I18N WG agree with what the
>>> XML Schema WG is doing?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Makoto
>
>
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:02:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:02:53 GMT