Re: Transition Request: (2nd) PER Request for XML Base Second Edition

Chris Lilley scripsit:

> Thanks, Richard. It does indeed currently refer to them simly as IRIs,
> and points to RFC 3987 for the definition. It does also normatively
> refer to XLink; but it also says what the type of the attributes are
> rather than "they are whatever Xlink says" because, for one thing,
> we have a DOM while XLink does not specify one.

Okay, fair enough.  So SVG allows a subset of what XLink allows: nothing
amiss with that.

> It sounds as if you are saying that SVG should specify a subset of
> what XLink and XML Base allow. So we say they accept an IRI.
> 
> Which is simple, but then we catch flack for embrace-and-extend (well
> ok embrace-and-subset).

I think there is a huge difference between extending and subsetting.
You are already subsetting XLink by using simple links only (indeed,
the Core WG is considering making simple-links-only a formal conformance
level of XLink 1.1).  So disallowing LEIRIs that are not IRIs, which
you are already doing implicitly, is perfectly fine.

> Or we could specify differently for content conformance (IRI only)
> and processors (LEIRI). Not very nice either.

Feh.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan@ccil.org
Arise, you prisoners of Windows / Arise, you slaves of Redmond, Wash,
The day and hour soon are coming / When all the IT folks say "Gosh!"
It isn't from a clever lawsuit / That Windowsland will finally fall,
But thousands writing open source code / Like mice who nibble through a wall.
        --The Linux-nationale by Greg Baker