W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Namespaces 1.0: URI syntax a NSC

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:42:14 +0000
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b8wevk7vd.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bjoern Hoehrmann writes:

> * Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>>Please let us know if you are willing to accept this resolution in the
>>current instance, pending the outcome of any further higher-level
>>discussion.
>
> The XML 1.0 specification and the Namespaces in XML 1.0 specification in
> essence share the same structure and since the Second Edition also the
> same terminology. Conformance of documents is defined through production
> rules in a formal grammar, and where the formal grammar cannot express
> requirements, the grammar is amended through Constraints in prose. The
> terms "valid" and "well-formed" are used for documents meeting certain
> criteria.

That's a slight exaggeration - both specs still contain some RFC2119
language which is outside Constraints.

> The XML 1.0 specification considers a document well-formed if it matches
> a certain grammar production, meets all the well-formedness constraints,
> and all referenced parsed entities are well-formed. Namespaces in XML
> does not phrase the definition of namespace-well-formedness quite like
> that, but if you read the specification assuming matching the grammar
> and meeting the namespace constraints gives you a namespace-well-formed
> document, you will find little difference with the actual definition.
> . . .
> Your response is not acceptable to me as you are failing to cite reasons
> why the change should not be made; all you said is that it is not abso-
> lutely necessary to make it. A proper response would explain for example
> the difference between this change and analogous changes for NE14 and
> NE19. I believe the Working Group's decision and response should be
> reviewed by an independent third party; please mark this issue as such.

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, such review will
happen as a matter of course at the Transition meeting per the W3C
Process.

Let me however offer a compromise -- you're right, I didn't explain
why the WG doesn't want to do this now.  The reason is that there is
time pressure on the issue of XML NS 1.0 3e, because until it is
published there is a disconnect between XML 1.0 5e and XML NS 1.0 2e,
which is fixed by NE17 and NE18.  The WG has had some urgent requests
to make clear that these fixes are normative, so we want to publish 3e
as quickly as possible.

The WG does not think it's appropriate to make the kind of systematic
set of edits you are requesting, so that all RFC2119 language is in
Constraints, at this point in the Process for 3e, after AC review.
That's why I suggested that what we _would_ do is look at that after
3e is out, and see what errata would be required.

I hope you can agree to this suggestion, and help us with the details
when we return to this matter after 3e is published.

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFK6DwmkjnJixAXWBoRAtZ9AKCAunv/yg70vzIKP4krk+1Ge93N2QCfY1X5
wRNsuVB6DGgep1bWdYjg/0k=
=r6/C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 12:42:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:45 GMT