Re: xmlse:foo slightly substantive comment on CURIEs (both in stand alone document, and in RDFa PR) (PR#8053)

Jeremy,

Thanks for your comment.  The working group discussed this and has the following
resolution.  Please confirm if this resolution addresses your concern:

We added a comment to the CURIE specification consistent with the submitters
request.  We were unable to make changes to the RDFa Syntax specification
because of publication requirements.  However, since that specification in fact
REQUIRES the use of xmlns: to define prefix mappings, in that context the
prefix "xmlse" would not be permitted.

> This is a comment on:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-rdfa-syntax-20080904/
> and
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080506/
> made on behalf of TopQuadrant.
> 
> Contents:
>   Comment
>   Related Draft Comments
> 
> Comment:
> ***
> The string xmlse:foo is (arguably) a CURIE according to the RDFa PR
> and is not a CURIE according to the CURIE Last Call WD.
> 
> See the text:
> [[
> prefix values MUST be able to be defined using the 'xmlns:' syntax specified
in
> [XMLNAMES].
> ]]
> in the latter, which is not in the former.
> 
> Note both documents have the rule:
> [[
> prefix      :=   NCName
> ]]
> and NCName is linked to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#NT-NCName
> 
> which says 
> [[
> Prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l, in any case
> combination, are reserved for use by XML and XML-related specifications.
> ]]
> 
> but since xml:lang is clearly intended to match the QName construct
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#NT-QName
> it is, in my view, a misreading of Namespaces in XML to have NCName not
matching
> the string "xmlse"
> 
> My preferred fix would be:
> Delete the offending text from CURIE.
> Add the following clarification to both documents:
> [[
> Note: A CURIE prefix value may case-insensitively begin in the string "xml",
but
> then it is not permitted to be used as a prefix in an xmlns declaration in an
> XML document. 
> ]] 
> ***
> 
> Related Draft Comments:
> 
> The background to this observation is further explained in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0028
> which is in turn a follow up to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0018
> Note msg 0028 took a more positive spin on this observation, but on further
> reflection this morning led me to this more substantive issue. 
> Since this comment arose during my review for the SWD WG, there may be
further
> comment from that WG (e.g. either an endorsement or an explicit
> non-endorsement).
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 17:31:13 UTC