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

Re: CURIE review from SWD WG (PR#8052)

From: Shane McCarron <xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:59:53 -0500
Message-Id: <200810181459.m9IExrOD008541@htmlwg.mn.aptest.com>
To: jeremy@topquadrant.com
CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org

Jeremy and the SWD WG,

Thanks for your careful comments.  We have integrated most of them into the
latest 
version - our detailed responses are below:

> 2. Picky Wordsmithing
> 
> Abstract:
> 
> OLD:
> [[
> The aim of this document is to outline a syntax for expressing URIs in a
> generic, abbreviated syntax. While it has been produced in conjunction with
the
> XHTML 2 Working Group, it is not specifically targeted at use by XHTML Family
> Markup Languages. Note that the target audience for this document is Language
> designers, not the users of those Languages.
> ]]
> 
> SUGGESTED:
> [[
> This document provides a generic, abbreviated syntax for expressing URIs
forming
> an extension to the use of QNames as abbreviations. This syntax is intended
to
> be used as a common element by language designers. Target languages include,
but
> are not limited to, XML languages. The intended audience for this document is
> Language designers, not the users of those Languages.
> ]]

We have modified your suggested wording, but in general agree that it is better
than what we had before!

> 
> Section 3:
> 
> The review was done with section 7 of RDFa alongside.
> 
> First para:
> OLD:
> [[
> A CURIE is by definition a syntactic superset of a QName. It is comprised ...
> ]]
> 
> SUGGESTED:
> [[
> The following definition makes the set of CURIEs a syntactic superset of the
set
> of QNames,
> providing a migration path. 
> 
> It is comprised ...
> ]]

We adopted this wording without the mention of migration path - there are many
good reasons to use QNames and CURIEs are a poor substitute when QNames are used
correctly.

> 
> OLD:
> [[
> Note that while the set of IRIs represents the lexical space of a CURIE, the
> value space is the set of URIs (IRIs after canonicalization - see [IRI]).
> ]]
> 
> SUGGESTED (from RDFa section 7):
> [[
> Note that while the lexical space of a CURIE is as defined in *curie* above,
the
> value space is the set of IRIs.
> ]]

The TAG suggested wording as well, and it was consistent with yours.  We have
adopted their wording.

> 
> OLD:
> [[
> does not conform the constraints
> ]]
> 
> SUGGESTED:
> [[
> does not conform to the constraints
> ]]

Fixed

> 
> OLD:
> [[
> Language designers SHOULD only use CURIEs (or safe_curies) as the datatype of
> new attributes in their markup language, since using them in values where
> historically an attribute has taken a URI as its datatype could break
backward
> compatibility.
> ]]
> 
> SUGGESTED:
> [[
> When revising a language that has historically permitted URIs in certain
> locations (e.g. as values of a specific attribute), then to ensure backward
> compatibility, language designers SHOULD NOT permit CURIEs (or safe_curies)
as
> the datatype in the corresponding location, but SHOULD provide a new
mechanism
> (e.g. a new attribute).
> ]]

Nice - this is what we meant!

Thanks again!

-Shane
Received on Saturday, 18 October 2008 15:01:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:17:59 GMT