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

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:37:49 +0000
Message-ID: <4B6AA37D.9030704@cam.ac.uk>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>
Lin Clark wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I noticed the same thing last week. Michael Hausenblas sent a message[1] to
> the RDF in XHTML mailing list. The conclusion was that this is an error.

Is it intentional that this seemingly differs from the earlier 
conclusion about the same issue? I suggested the test case 
http://github.com/msporny/rdfa-test-suite/blob/master/tests/0154.txt and 
a response in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Nov/0013.html> 
said:

   "All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to refer to 4th Edition in 
the coming weeks. We don't trust 5th Edition."

and 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Nov/0099.html> 
said:

   "[...] TC 154 have been moved to "On Hold" status. [...] TC 154 
contains an invalid XML character per XML 4th edition rules. We need to 
decide how this will affect the graph that is generated and produce some 
errata text to formalize the behavior."

indicating that the 4th edition rules are what's meant to be applied.

If the conclusion is that RDFa should be based on the latest version of 
XMLNS, then TC 154 no longer contains an invalid character and so I 
think it doesn't need to be on hold.

> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2010Jan/0062.html
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> [...]
> 

-- 
Philip Taylor
pjt47@cam.ac.uk
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 10:38:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 February 2010 10:38:19 GMT