W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > June 2000

Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?)

From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:27:15 -0400
Message-ID: <3952A0D3.DCC9E00D@valinet.com>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
CC: xml-uri@w3.org
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:

> At 09:17 AM 6/22/00 -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> >In order to make progress, I think it would be useful to collect *exact
> >proposals* for clarification/redesign/rewording of the current NS spec and
> >put them on a Web page (which of course would require using a URI but that
> >is another story). I for one am looking forward to see David's proposal on
> >java classes. Maybe W3C would be willing to put up such a page?
>
> Here's a small start.  In Namespaces in XML, replace:
> [Definition:] URI references which identify namespaces are considered
> identical when they are exactly the same character-for-character. Note that
> URI references which are not identical in this sense may in fact be
> functionally equivalent. Examples include URI references which differ only
> in case, or which are in external entities which have different effective
> base URIs.
>
> [Definition:] URI references which identify namespaces are considered
> identical when they are exactly the same character-for-character. Note that
> URI references which are not identical in this sense may in fact be
> functionally equivalent and vice-versa. Examples include URI references
> which differ only in case, or which are in external entities which have
> different effective base URIs. Applications which process documents
> containing namespaces identified by relative URI references may use their
> own knowledge of context to absolutize those references, but such
> processing must not be performed by parsers comparing namespace values to
> determine attribute name uniqueness.

Ah!!! But you didn't replace the really troublesome paragraph, which is the
definition of a namespace name and the strange words it contains about
something being "not a goal".   I think the text you've just suggested has to
be considered in conjunction with the replacement for the definition of a
namespace name.  (I scribbled a replacement for that text a while back.)

Paul Abrahams
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2000 19:27:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:25 GMT