W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Namespaces 1.1 Last Call -- I18N WG comments

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:56:59 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org

Hello Richard,

I have in the meantime had a chance to look at the member-only
editing copy at

I can confirm Misha's comments as the official comments from
the WG/TF. My understanding is that they have been addressed
in the editing copy, although not in the explicity that we have
requested (e.g. instead of defining 'escaping', this was just
changed to %-escaping). We hope that this and the examples in
section 2.3 should be clear enough to avoid further misunderstadings
and discussions.

However, as actioned (see below), I have looked at section 9,
and also went back and checked
again. Some of our comments there have been addressed. However, some
still remain.

In particular, the position of [ and ] to indicate the extent
of the definitions are still wrong. I know it's not really your
fault, but I think there are really only two ways out: Change
(your version of) the xmlspec dtd and stylesheet, or don't
use the <definition> (or whatever it's called) element.

Also, the syntax details of the IRI definition are already
out of sync again.
  ucschar        = %xA0-D7FF / %xF900-FDCF / %xFDF0-FFEF /
                         / %x10000-1FFFD / %x20000-2FFFD / %x30000-3FFFD
                         / %x40000-4FFFD / %x50000-5FFFD / %x60000-6FFFD
                         / %x70000-7FFFD / %x80000-8FFFD / %x90000-9FFFD
                         / %xA0000-AFFFD / %xB0000-BFFFD / %xC0000-CFFFD
                         / %xD0000-DFFFD / %xE1000-EFFFD

and http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri.txt
also has:

  iprivate       = %xE000-F8FF / %xF0000-FFFFD / %x100000-10FFFD

There are also some additional chances that there will be some
further changes.

I therefore really wonder what the purpose of your syntax definition is.
For the namespace spec itself, only comparison is what matters, or not?
Is a something like <p:p xmlns:p='@@@:a#a#a'> namespace-well-formed or
not? To what extent is a namespace-aware processor supposed to check
the details of the URI/IRI syntax? To what extent do actual implementations
check currently? If a check isn't needed, or isn't done by current
implementations, what's the purpose of the syntax definition in the

All these questions lead me to think that it might be better to
remove the details of the definition.

Regards,   Martin.

At 07:40 02/12/04 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote:

>Hello Richard,
>Many thanks for your response and the followups.
>The I18N WG Core Task Force has discussed your response today.
>It has given myself the following action:
>Action Martin: To confirm Misha's comments as official WG/TF comments.
>                To check section 9 and add comments if necessary
>                (in particular, there may be no need for a syntax definition)
>                'character' may be well defined, but not
>                'character-by-character identity'
>I'm contacting you today because it was my understanding from what
>Francois Yergeau said today at our teleconference that the CR would
>be finalized by your WG tomorrow, and that a link to the draft
>as it currently stands would be in the mail. However, from your
>mail below, I gather that you need our response by Dec 9th.
>Can you confirm this, and give me a link to your current editing
>version, so that I can check section 9?
>Regards,    Martin.
>At 18:32 02/11/28 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>This is a formal response from the XML Core WG to your comments on the
>>Namespaces in XML 1.1 last call working draft.
>>If we haven't heard from you by the end of Monday December 9th, we
>>will assume for the purposes of our planned CR request that you have
>>no objection to our resolution.
>>Commenter email address: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
>> >Subject: Namespaces 1.1 Last Call -- I18N WG comments
>> >Section "1 Motivation and Summary"
>> >----------------------------------
>> >[comments on IRI identity]
>>Summary: accepted
>>We will add an appendix with plenty of examples to cover the possible
>>gotchas you list.
>> > Section "2 Declaring Namespaces"
>> > --------------------------------
>> >
>> > Text:
>> >
>> >    Though they are not themselves reserved, it is inadvisable to use
>> >    prefixed names whose LocalPart begins with the letters x, m, l, as
>> >    these names would be reserved if used without a prefix.
>> >
>> > Comments:
>> >
>> >    Please add "in any case combination".
>>Summary: accepted
>> > Section "7 Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)"
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Comments:
>> >
>> >    Please align this section with the XML specification, 2nd edition, as
>> >    corrected by errata E26:
>> >[...]
>> >  We think there are other, more serious, problems with this section,
>> >  which we'll describe in a separate mail.
>>We're not sure what aligning it would amount to; presumably it would be
>>more appropriate to align XML 1.x system identifiers with the IRI spec
>>when it comes out.
>>As to the more serious problems, we have re-written the section as
>>described in our earlier message:
>>-- Richard Tobin, Namespaces 1.1 editor
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 18:57:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:48 UTC