W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: [ACTION-4] Re: W3C TAG Response to CURIE Last Call (PR#8055)

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:54:20 +0100
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Cc: "Shane P. McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>
Message-ID: <f5bbpxka0j7.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

I've looked through the new draft [1], and without prejudice to any
official TAG response, I have one remaining personal issue.

I see that you have clarified the syntax so that it is clear that
e.g. :foo is a valid CURIE.  But the discussion of what IRI a CURIE
represents doesn't respect the distinction you are depending on wrt
'foo' vs. ':foo', namely "default prefix" versus "default namespace"
(which is pretty obscure, it has to be said -- do you really _have_ to
do this?  It blows the syntactic parallel between element
names/attribute names/QNames and CURIES. . .).

In particular, no mention of default namespace is made in the crucial
paragraph (the one which begins "CURIEs are an abbreviation for
strings").  I suggest you separate out and promote the definition of
the mapping, for instance give a three-bullet quasi-formal
specification of the CURIE->IRI mapping, possibly twice (once for XML
languages and once for non-XML languages), _before_ this paragraph,
possibly in its own sub-section.


[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-curie-20081008/
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, 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]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 17:55:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:56 UTC