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: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 04:19:56 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20021212041818.03204060@localhost>
To: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org

Hello Richard,

As you asked in private mail, I'm glad to confirm that at this
stage (CR), the I18N WG, represented by its Core task force,
is happy with the changes you made, and we don't have any
remaining objections. We have checked this again at our
teleconf yesterday.

Regards,   Martin.

At 13:27 02/12/06 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In particular, the position of [ and ] to indicate the extent
> > of the definitions are still wrong.
>
>I'll look for a way to improve this before we get to Rec, but I don't
>think it's serious enough to worry about now.
>
> > Also, the syntax details of the IRI definition are already
> > out of sync again.
>
>This is inevitable, but hopefully things will be more stable by the
>time we get to Rec, even if the RFC hasn't been published.  It -02
>still the one we should reference?  I think the definition we give
>should be consistent with the one we can reference, though we could
>add a statement that it is expected that the private use ranges will
>be added.
>
> > 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?
>
>We have said that
>
>(a) namespace names must be IRIs for well-formedness
>(b) namespace processors don't have to check.
>
> > 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
> > spec?
>
>We believe that most existing namespace processors don't check.  But
>we also know that some *applications* expect to be able to parse
>namespace names and store them in URI structures, for example when
>probing for a schema at that address.  (In fact, we have a formal
>objection to the change to IRIs from someone whose application relies
>on them being URIs.)
>
>I think its reasonable that you should not get an error (other than a
>retrieval error of course) from a well-formed document when you
>attempt to use its namespace name as an IRI, so I believe that (a)
>above is right.  We decided on (b) as a result of your comments
>(on the TAG list if I remember correctly) and in keeping with existing
>practice.  And if we say they must be IRIs, I think we need to give
>a provisional definition in the absence of an RFC.
>
>We can of course revisit this in the light of IRI progress at the PR
>stage.
>
>-- Richard
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 14:30:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:43 GMT