W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > July 2002

Re: [48 hour] DRAFT Last Call comment Re: [XML 1.1] Allowable element names

From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:30:46 +1000
Message-ID: <012601c223f5$e0e9e5e0$4bc8a8c0@AlletteSystems.com>
To: "WAI Cross-group list" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>

> * "odd characters may make inaccessible names"

Good

> *  "good-symbols BCP at dialect level"

Good

> *  "no clear cut."

Yes, I wouldn't expect the WAI group to be deciding individual cases.
Indeed, it is rather to the point that there can be considerable impediments
to even getting as far as examining them!

What I would hope is even the people on the XML Core WG who really
would prefer that all characters be allowed in names will say "well,
given the robustness aspect and the WAI aspect and the Unicode
identifier guidelines and XML 1.0 history and user's expectation that
readability be promoted, all things considered we should err on the 
side of being overly restrictive rather than being overly open."

Naming-rules is one of these tricky things IMHO, where there is a combination
of factors that some may consider minor in themselves (if you know
what I mean) but which cumulative are more compelling.

So "no clear cut" guidelines should be carefully distinguished from
"no action required"!    I would suggest that there is an WAI advantage
if all programming/markup languages/environments standardize
on supporting the Unicode guidelines for identifiers, which are
very similar to XML 1.0 but are updated based on character
properties.  So "no clear cut" would be better as "no clear cut
specific guidelines, but commending the Unicode identifier rules to
the XML Core WG"

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 03:17:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:37 GMT