- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:39:21 -0500
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Stephen Farrel <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
On Friday 12 December 2003 04:51, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > [1] URIEquivalence-15: When are two URI variants considered > equivalent? > > For this issue, our results are being integrated into > RFC2396bis. I thought this was an interesting issue, but raised it on behalf of Stephen Farrel on some of the WS-Sec work. So I have no objection, though I think those communities might want to know of this if they don't already via the IETF. > [2] qnameAsId-18: Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers? > > We have a (nearly completed) finding summarizing our > resolution: > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html No objections though 1. I don't understand the principle of "Good Practice" (if the principle has been followed and a mapping is provided, what does it matter?). 2. The "musts" in the document: As soon as QNames may appear in element or attribute values, the processor must retain all of the prefix-to-URI mappings (and any API must expose these mappings). Since that isn't capitalized, I assume it's describing practice but not a requirement. But in the principle, what is the authority and object of the MUST?
Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 14:39:25 UTC