RE: Grinding to a halt on Issue 27.

> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Robin Berjon
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:43 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: WWW-Tag
> Subject: Re: Grinding to a halt on Issue 27.
>
>
>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> > By all means, yes, the latter. As far as I understand, IRI support never
> > appeared in the requirements for XML 1.1, and thus delaying the specs
> > because of the reference to the unfinished IRI spec seems to be the
> > absolutely wrong thing to do.
>
> XML had strong requirements for I18N, to me that would *very*
> strongly mandate
> IRIs. In fact it would be ridiculous to support Unicode and not
> IRIs. The spec
> may be in flux but such is life and if we have word from the
> people working on
> it that it's stable enough then imho it's usable.

The requirements for XMLNS are at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xml-names11-req-20020403/> and read:

---
Namespaces in XML 1.1 must be a superset of Namespaces in XML 1.0 in both
functionality and syntax.

Namespaces in XML 1.1 will correspond to XML 1.1.

Namespaces in XML 1.1 must be prepared quickly.

Namespaces in XML 1.1 must be advanced to Recommendation concurrently with
XML 1.1.

The changes required for Namespaces in XML 1.0 processors to also process
Namespaces in XML 1.1 must be as few and as small as possible.

The Namespaces in XML 1.1 specification must incorporate all published
errata to Namespaces in XML 1.0.

In creating Namespaces in XML 1.1, the working group should not consider any
revisions to Namespaces in XML 1.0 except those needed to accomplish these
requirements.
---

I think changing the syntax for namespace names clearly is outside the scope
of these requirements.

> ...

Julian


--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 06:55:04 UTC