W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2004

Re: xml11Names-46

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:32:30 -0400
Message-Id: <A5D3AA8E-BD5F-11D8-8CCA-000A95BA5A2C@openhealth.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>

Norman Walsh wrote:
> In a nutshell, the problem is this: XML Schema 1.0 normatively refers
> to XML Namespaces 1.0 for the definition of QName and XML Namespaces
> 1.0 normatively refers to XML 1.0 for the definition of Name and XML
> 1.0 has fewer Name characters than XML 1.1.
> That means that by a strict interpretation of the Recommendations,

I hope that you are not suggesting that a "loose" interpretation is 
acceptable. If loose interpretations of the RECs were acceptable then 
there would be no need to actually produce XML 1.1 -- we could all 
assume that in the spirit of Unicode layering that XML 1.0 could be 
interpreted (loosely :-) as intending to be XML 1.1 all along.

>  it
> is impossible to write an XML Schema for a document that uses the
> "new" Name characters. And by extension, it is impossible for an
> XPath expression or a protocol document to use XML 1.1.

Correct. That is how the specs are written. If they had been written 
differently the situation would be otherwise. That is why there tend to 
me more than one version of specs. Specs need to evolve.
> This is a problem that must be overcome, and overcome quickly before
> new specs are completed, in order to provide any reasonable hope of
> providing XML 1.1 support to those communities that are relying on it.
I don't expect the world as we know it to end if XML 1.1 isn't 
supported by XML Schema 1.0 in the next few months.

XML 1.1 support must only be accomplished by update those specs that 
normatively depend on XML 1.0. I mean at the very least a new REC could 
be issued where XML 1.0 is replaced by XML 1.1 if that is all that is 
needed (e.g. XML Schema 1.01) It would be a serious mistake to license 
other than strict interpretations -- thus changing the meaning of an 
existing REC.

Validation, like other conformance tests, needs to be binary.

Received on Sunday, 13 June 2004 13:32:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:42 UTC