W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-issues@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: productions [NS 1, 10, 11, 17]

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:39:12 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980910203809.00aa7b70@pop.intergate.bc.ca>
To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, David Brownell <db@argon.Eng.Sun.COM>
Cc: xml-names-issues@w3.org
At 11:32 AM 8/17/98 +0700, James Clark wrote:
>I would actually go further and not provide productions for the
>namespace declarations at all:
>
>In my view, the right processing model for the namespace draft is that
>there's a two-stage process:

The argument is persuasive but I don't think we should get into 
micromanaging the processing model.  Reason is that in may apps
you're going to be in SAX-land or equivalent and there will be
no tree normaliation going on.  I think the grammar, as amended
due to the input here, is quite clear.

>The spec needs to say how they are compared (only for the purposes of
>6.4 as far as I can see).  It could just say you compare the strings
>character for character.  The URN spec (RFC 2141) specifies lexical
>equivalence for URNs:

Ouch; these are URIs, not URNs.  Can we get away with weasel words
simply saying that they have to be lexically equivalent per the
governing spec?  I've tried this. Dan? -Tim
Received on Thursday, 10 September 1998 23:38:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:30 UTC