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

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

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:54:46 -0700
To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
CC: "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA014AB95D7B@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
John Cowan noted:
> 
> > I note that XML Namespaces 1.1 2e actually does reference IRI
> (RFC
> > 3987), while several of the XML Base specifications reference
> something
> > much like an IRI (which has been given the name "LEIRI"). It's
> probably
> > not a good idea to have both concepts running loose at the same
> time.
> 
> We aren't going to extend LEIRIs to anything that doesn't already
> have them; hence the name "Legacy". 

Yes. I agree.

> > However, namespaces could define non-normalized IRIs
> > as illegal.
> 
> Excellent point.  I'll share this with the XML Core unless you
> object.

No, of course not. Please share.

> 
> > That said, I think using IRIs for namespaces makes a lot of
> > sense---especially if we allow elements, attributes, and so forth
> to
> > use the full range of Unicode. And since XLink and other specs
> use
> > (LE)IRI, it would make some sense to port it.
> 
> Okay.

A better way to say this would probably be: if one has gone to the trouble of assembling a DTD that uses (let's say) Tifinagh, it doesn't make much sense to require the namespace for that DTD to use a different script or more restrictive range of characters to reference it.

> 
> > That, of course, is my personal opinion with only a few minutes
> thought.
> 
> Sure.
> 

Again, my personal response. I'm sure the WG will take it up in due course.

Addison
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 00:55:23 GMT

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