W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Response to comment on Namespaces in XML 1.1

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 22:09:29 -0700
To: "'Richard Tobin'" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, <xml-names-editor@w3.org>
Cc: "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@w3.org>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
Message-ID: <011c01c31f57$2875cb10$b7422099@MASINTERPAD>

I think there was some resistance to disallowing something
that was previously allowed, but this isn't a matter of
"disallowing" it is a matter of "recommending against".
I'll leave it up to you -- oh editors -- to figure out
the politically correct way of accomplishing this task.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:51 AM
> To: xml-names-editor@w3.org
> Cc: Larry Masinter; Martin Duerst; Tim Bray
> Subject: RE: Response to comment on Namespaces in XML 1.1
> 
> 
> > So the "good practice" is not just to avoid use of
> > 'confusingly similar IRIs as namespace names', but to
> > avoid use of URIs which have equivalent IRIs.
> 
> So, since the difference between IRIs and URIs is which characters
> can be left unescaped, this would boil down to "don't use namespace
> names with unnecessary escaping".  And because of the issue of case
> in escapes, one might extend this to "don't use namespace names with
> any escaped characters".  Does that seem reasonable?
> 
> -- Richard
> 
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 01:10:12 GMT

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