W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2010

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:48:38 -0600
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1265269718.3812.602.camel@pav.lan>
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 00:06 +0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at.
> 
> Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using
> 'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec?

No... I'm saying: the definition of Name in XML went
from, roughly, "only prescribe characters" to "everything except
disallowed characters". See http://cmsmcq.com/mib/?p=606
for some relevant commentary.

And NCName in the XML namespaces spec is defined in terms of
Name from XML. and CURIE is defined in terms of NCName from namespaces.

I tried to find a relevant test case in
  http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/
but I got lost in the maze.


XML and Namespaces got updated, but evidently that didn't
complete until just after RDFa was cooked.


> If so, I don't see how it could, since 'prefix' needs to be the
> 'non-colon' version of 'Name', i.e., 'NCName'. This is only defined in
> the XML Namespaces spec, as far as I know.
> 
> But that might not be what you mean...have I missed what you're driving at?
> 
> :)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 07:48:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 February 2010 07:48:41 GMT