W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

RE: Namespaces 1.1 Last Call -- I18N WG comments

From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:21:16 +0000
Message-Id: <200211291923.OAA23670@tux.w3.org>
To: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, xml-names-editor@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org

#######################################################################
#  If you are reading this mail in the mail archive, then note that   #
#  a number of important characters and strings are wrongly rendered. #
#######################################################################

Hi Richard,

The following response is informal and is not exhaustive.

> Here are the sections of the spec (2.2, 9, appendix B) relevant to
> your comments.
> 
> I hope the non-ASCII characters don't get messed up in the mail!
> 
> -- Richard
> 
> 2.2 Use of IRIs as Namespace Names
> 
> [Definition: IRI references which identify namespaces are considered
> identical if and only if they are exactly the same
> character-for-character.] This is described in greater detail, with
> examples, in B Comparing IRI References.

The definition of "exactly the same character-for-character" does *not*
belong in an appendix.  In particular, the definition should make clear 
that the string comparison should be preceded by the steps described in:

   3.3.3 Attribute-Value Normalization
   http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#AVNormalize

[...]

> Appendix B Comparing IRI References
> 
> IRI references identifying namespaces are compared when determining
> whether a name belongs to a given namespace, and whether two names
> belong to the same namespace. The two IRIs are treated as strings, and
> they are identical if the strings are identical, that is, if they are
> the same sequence of characters. The comparison is case-sensitive, and
> no %-escaping is done or undone.
> 
> A consequence of this is that IRI references which are not identical
> in this sense may resolve to the same resource. Examples include IRI
> references which differ only in case or %-escaping, or which are in
> external entities which have different base URIs (but note that
> relative IRIs are deprecated as namespace names).
> 
> In a namespace declaration, the IRI reference is the normalized value
> of the attribute, so replacement of XML character and entity
> references has already been done before any comparison.

Three problems here:
-  it seems to be the first time normalization is mentioned
-  it is mentioned in passing
-  the type of normalization isn't specified

The last of these is particularly problematic, as the XML 1.1 CR
addresses also a completely different normalization:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#sec2.13

> Examples:
> 
> The IRI references below are different for the purposes of identifying
> namespaces, since they differ in case:
> 
>   http://www.example.org/wine
>   http://www.example.org/Wine

It would be preferable to use the same examples as below, eg:

    http://www.example.org/rosé
    http://www.example.org/rosÉ

> The IRI references below are also all different for the purposes of
> identifying namespaces:
> 
>   http://www.example.org/rosé
>   http://www.example.org/ros%c3%a9
>   http://www.example.org/ros%c3%A9
>   http://www.example.org/ros%C3%a9
>   http://www.example.org/ros%C3%A9
> 
> If the entity eacute has been defined to be é, the start tags below
> all contain namespace declarations binding the prefix p to the same
> IRI reference, http://example.org/rosé.
> 
>   <p:foo xmlns:p="http://example.org/rosé">
>   <p:foo xmlns:p="http://example.org/ros&#xe9;">
>   <p:foo xmlns:p="http://example.org/ros&#xE9;">
>   <p:foo xmlns:p="http://example.org/ros&#233;">
>   <p:foo xmlns:p="http://example.org/ros&eacute;"> 

Regards,
Misha



-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Friday, 29 November 2002 14:23:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:13 GMT