W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: comments on PR-xml-infoset-20010810

From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:26:28 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200108161426.PAA01202@rhymer.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org
> But RFC 2606 recommends the use of .example for documentations.

I take the statement in RFC 2606 as meaning "of the four domains
test, example, invalid, and localhost, example is the one for use
in documentation".  I don't see anything deprecating the use of the
existing example.* name, and the real point of 2606 seems to be to
provide for the case where a top-level domain is needed (which it
isn't in this case).  In the absence of anything prohibiting the
use of example.org, I prefer it on aesthetic grounds.

About your other points:

I will change the RFC reference to point to IETF.

The phrase "absolute URI with an optional fragment identifier" does
not imply that a URI can contain a fragment identifier, any more than
"ham with eggs" implies that ham can contain eggs.  But there's
another point which needs to be resolved - should namespaces have to
be URI references?  If so, they can't contain non-ascii characters
which is inconsistent with (for example) system identifiers which are
defined to be escaped if necessary by the processor.  Should they
perhaps be IURIs (or some similar term)?

-- Richard
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 10:26:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 March 2009 11:12:24 GMT