W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Helping us close two TAG issues

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>
Message-Id: <200312121439.21884.reagle@mit.edu>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT