W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > February 2010

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:32:08 -0600
Message-ID: <4B6ABE48.3080307@aptest.com>
To: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Hmm... I guess I need to look into this harder.  It is correct that we 
do not want to go towatd XML Revision 5 because of its changes to legal 
name characters.  The entire XHTML suite of specifications is setting on 
Revision 4.  If the updated namespaces spec relies upon revision 5....  
I am not sure what the working group will want to do.

I will keep you all posted.

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.
>
> Cheers,
> Lin
>
> [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 
> <mailto: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.
>
>
>     > 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
>
>
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 12:33:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:54 GMT