Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 February 1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> "URI reference" "checking"
> . . .
> Henry's penultimate email asked if this should generate
> an official objection (which question was never answered),
> so we can handle this thread the same as the others in
> this category (which I assume will be to generate an
> official objection).
>
> Henry, do you agree that this thread should now
> be considered closed? 

The draft spec currently reads:


 *Note*: XLink 1.0 explicitly did not require applications to check
 that the value of the xlink:href attribute conformed to the syntactic
 rules of a URI. While [RFC 3986] has clarified the syntactic rules,
 this specification follows the lead of XLink 1.0 (and many other
 specifications) and does not impose any new conformance testing
 requirements on XLink applications in this area.

I'd be happy to add a sentence to address Bjoern's concerns [1] along
the following lines:

 "Applications which detect, either directly or via standard
  libraries, violations of the syntactic rules of [RFC 3896], SHOULD
  NOT recover silently."

What do others think?

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/ljkft1t4k57k8gnr6c7t5enhmn5gg4g69n@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD43tekjnJixAXWBoRAod7AJ9K985RMZnDN9G+98znt+AMmYqVTACaA/1c
xIEoeCOfY2Pp4pi+4c+ezk0=
=1QBh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 15:49:02 UTC