W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2007

Comments on WD-curie-20070307

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:42:18 -0400
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
CC: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <87ps6mvl45.fsf@nwalsh.com>
A casual reading of the CURIE spec raised the following technical
questions in my mind:

"When a CURIE is used in an XML grammar, and the prefix on the CURIE
is omitted, then the prefix MUST be interpreted as the current default
XML namespace."

Current practice with respect to unprefixed names where a QName is
allowed are inconsistent on this point. In XML Schema, they are
sometimes taken to be in the current default XML namespace. In XSLT,
they are always in no-namespace. Was it the conscious intent of the
CURIE specification to remove this flexibility from specifications
that choose to adopt CURIEs? What is the rationale for this
restriction?

"When a CURIE is used in a non-XML grammar, the grammar MUST provide a
mechanism for defining the default prefix."

The default prefix? Do you not mean the default namespace?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as
http://nwalsh.com/            | possible, but no simpler.

Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 15:42:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:09 GMT