- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:26:19 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, 2009 October 20 10:45 > To: Grosso, Paul > Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > Subject: Comments on NS 3e need action (was Re: Agenda for XML Core WG > telcon of 2009 October 21) > * From Bjoern, regarding the fact that non-URIs are errors but not > NSC: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2009Aug/0001.html > > * From Ramkumar Menon, requesting explicit discussion of interaction > with XInclude: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2009Sep/0000.html My suggestions: Issue barclay-1 --------------- accept/implement all editorial suggestions Issue matson-1: use XML 1.0 defn of NCName in NS 1.0 3rd Ed ----------------------------------------------------------- I defer to others on the WG Issue menon-1: discuss xinclude handling in NS 1.0 3rd Ed --------------------------------------------------------- No. Issue bjoern-1: make URI syntax requirement an NSC -------------------------------------------------- I believe we have long said that checking URI syntax is not something we want to get into. NS 1.0 1st Ed doesn't use "must"; it says: The attribute's value, a URI reference, is the namespace name identifying the namespace. I see the "must" crept into NS 1.0 2nd Ed text. At the same time, in section 8, we said "a processor...is not REQUIRED to check that namespace names are legal URIs." I suggest we either change the "must" in section 3 to a "should" and/or we include the "processor...is not REQUIRED to check that namespace names are legal URIs" statement right there in section 3. paul
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 14:28:49 UTC