W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > September 2007

Re: [XForms 1.1] i18n comment: IRIs for external schema locations possible? (PR#8)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:36:22 +0900
Message-ID: <46FA0BF6.8090201@w3.org>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
CC: public-i18n-core@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org, "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>

Hi John again,

we discussed the issue at our call yesterday, see 
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/25-core-minutes#item09 .

We would like to make you aware of two aspects of the topic:

First, IRIs are actually a subset of what XLink does (which is 
referenced by XML Schema 1.0).

Second: our real comment on your specification is not "reference IRI 
instead of anyURI" ,but rather: it is not clear to us whether IRI or XML 
Schema xsd:anyURI support is required normatively or depends on the host 
language(s) of XForms 1..

We would prefer that you mention IRI-flavored items explicitly in that 
context, rather than changing the definition from anyURI to RFC 3987.

Felix

Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> John Boyer wrote:
>>
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> I would like to take this opportunity to provide a little context  
>> for the response than that which appeared in the prior response.  I 
>> would then like to see whether that context helps to make the 
>> response more satisfactory for now.
>>
>> First, the spec that we normatively reference, XML Schema 1.0 Second 
>> Edition, defines xs:anyURI datatype in terms of RFC 2396, RFC 2732, 
>> and the algorithm in Section 5.4 of XLink [1].  It does not refer to 
>> RFC 3987 at all, as this document came out after XML Schema 1.0 
>> Second Edition.   
>
> that's exactly the point:  XML Schema 1.0 does not refer to RFC 3987, 
> since RFC 3987 was too late. Nevertheless, the xs:anyURI data type was 
> designed to be compatible with the upcoming IRI specification.
>
>>
>>
>> The working group decided to defer to a future version upgrading the 
>> XML Schema engines required by XForms processors and design tools.
> in my opinion, no upgrade of the XML Schema engines is necessary. The 
> reason that XML Schema 1.0 does not cite the IRI spec, is due to 
> timing (which you described above), not due to technical issues.
>
>>
>> And the more important fact, which responds to your response, is that 
>> the working group decided that upgrading to XPath 2.0 is a future 
>> feature scheduled for XForms 2.0, so the citation you gave of XPath 
>> 2.0 amounts to another pointer to a feature that is not within the 
>> scope of XForms 1.1. 
>
> I hope that my explanation above makes clear that a reference to IRI 
> will not require an implementation change for XML Schema engines 
> required by XForms processors.
>
>>  In other words, all of this functionality is amounting to requests 
>> for features that are not in the XForms 1.1 requirements 
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms-11-req/).
>
> Me / the i18n core Working Group don't have a new feature request, but 
> a request for clarification in existing features. My reference to 
> XPath 2.0 also was a reference to a clarifying note in that 
> specification, and not a request to implement features unique to it.
>
>>
>> So, our response was not rejecting the request, but rather committing 
>> to adding this issue into the requirements stream of the appropriate 
>> version of XForms containing numerous requirements related to this 
>> request,
>>
>> Could you let us know if this information makes it possible to accept 
>> the resolution (understood grudgingly) with the understanding that it 
>> is on the agenda for our future.
>
> I'm sorry, but personally I'm not yet convinced. Other participants 
> from the i18n core WG might provide input on this thread, and we will 
> come back with a Working Group reply after our next call this week 
> (Tuesday).
>
> Felix
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 07:36:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:16 GMT