W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: XLink 1.1: "URI reference" "checking"

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:15:28 +0100
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <7kift1hh68eevvdsp4jc6u9nkeb13annu1@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> I could not find a requirement in XLink 1.1 that corresponds to this.
>> Is XLink 1.1 not in line with the Architecture of the World Wide Web?
>Of course the WG aims to comply with WebArch.  We just don't think
>this is a WebArch issue.  XLink is a spec which relies on conformant
>implementations of RFCs it references.  XLink _itself_ is not an
>implementation of 3986.
>We have chosen not to incorporate by reference 3986's grammar for
>URIs, but any conformant implementation of 3986, i.e. the URI/http
>library _used_ by an XLink implementation, should of course conform to
>WebArch in this regard, and not, for example, recover silently from

I don't understand, first you say it's impractical for any application
to check for syntax errors, then you say it's probably not impractical
but you don't require it anyway and now you say of course, in the end,
implementations should check for syntax errors.

If you think that some web agent implementing XLink 1.1 should not
recover silently from URI syntax errors in XLink markup then including
specific language that no such checking is required makes no sense at
all, implementers would only read that as an encouragement to recover
silently from syntax errors. So what is your point?
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:14:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:25 UTC