W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2012

[Bug 15675] [XQ30] Computed Namespace Constructors

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:34:10 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RpRWk-00031I-9j@jessica.w3.org>

Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |mike@saxonica.com

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2012-01-23 21:34:08 UTC ---
I believe it is intentional, though I would have trouble proving it: the
history is long and tortuous.

Note that in XSD 1.1 the lexical space of xs:anyURI is the set of all strings
of XML characters, so the question becomes (in the American parlance) moot.

At the heart of the problem is that the namespaces recommendation
(deliberately, I understand) does not make it a well-formedness error if a
namespace name is not a valid URI (or IRI, in the case of the 1.1
specification). There is clearly an intent and desire that namespace names
should be URIs/IRIs, but there is no error defined if they are not. 

This point can itself be disputed. The rules for conformance of documents to
the Namespaces spec are circular: Section 7, Conformance of documents, says "A
document is namespace-well-formed if it conforms to this specification". 

Section 8, on conformance of processors, says "a processor must report
violations of namespace well-formedness, with the exception that it is not
required to check that namespace names are legal IRIs." which suggests that
documents using illegal IRIs are NOT namespace well-formed; but it is explicit
that the parser isn't required to reject such documents, and if the XML parser
isn't going to reject them then it doesn't make much sense for downstream
software to reject them.

So I think all of our specs have moved in the direction of removing any
requirement that namespace names be valid IRIs.

Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 21:34:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:47 UTC