W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2008

XML Core -> I18n Core: IRIs as namespace names?

From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:18:36 -0400
To: www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080813231836.GA20211@mercury.ccil.org>

This is an official request for comment from the W3C XML Core WG to the
XML I18n Core WG, but since both groups operate publicly, I'm posting
it here rather than using W3C channels.  Comment from other interested
parties is welcomed.  I'd appreciate it if someone on Core I18n put a
pointer to it on the Core I18n list.

As you probably know, XML Core is backporting the extended set of name
characters from XML 1.1 to the 5th edition of XML 1.0, thus making them
available to XML 1.0 users.  The other features of XML 1.1 are not being
backported at this time.

However, we are considering backporting features of XML Namespaces 1.1
(which is used exclusively with XML 1.1 documents) to XML Namespaces 1.0
(which is used exclusively with XML 1.0 documents).  The relevant feature
is allowing XML namespace names to be IRIs rather than URIs.

Point in favor: allowing an IRI permits the namespace name (which is used
only for naming, not for retrieval) to be at least partly meaningful in
languages other than English.

Point against: supporting full Unicode allows both visual spoofing and
composed-vs.-decomposed character spoofing of namespace names, possibly
causing a document which appears to be in one namespace to be validated
against the schema for another namespace.  Namespace names are compared
using codepoint-by-codepoint equality only, and this will not be changed.

What do you think?  Should we allow IRIs?

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a contract.
       --Specht v. Netscape
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 23:19:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:18 GMT