RE: XSCD component designators review

Thanks Jeremy! Contributions like this are worth their weight (when chiseled into stone tables, at least) in gold.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:52 AM
> To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: XSCD component designators review
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/
> 
> I have read this LC document.
> 
> A draft personal and/or SWBPD WG review is at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Apr/0073
> 
> Of these comments I suggest the following one should be made by the I18N
> Core WG, probably rephrased and strengthened to emphasize the need to
> refer to the IRI RFC.
> 
> [[
> Section 3.2 first para, and normative refs
> Suggest update ref to RFC 2396bis with ref to RFC 3986,
> or maybe 3987, since the names of schema components can and often do
> use characters outside the ASCII set supported by 3986, and the IRI RFC
> (3987)
> is closer to the xs:anyURI type (minor differences to do with spaces etc)
> ]]
> 
> The relevant para being commented on is:
> 
> [Definition: A canonical schema component designator is an absolute
> schema component designator that is a URI that has been normalized
> according to the rules given in the update to RFC2396 and where the
> relative schema component designator consists of an xmlns XPointer
> pointer part (if required) followed by a canonicalized xscd XPointer
> pointer part. ]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/#section-canonical
> 
> On further consideration, the rest of the doc is unclear whether it is
> intended to include IRIs, and what to do with non-ASCII chars in XML
> Schema names as the URIs (sic) are being constructed.
> 
> If a Core WG participant rephrases this as an appropriate WG comment,  I
> will double check that it fits with my reading of the doc.
> 
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2005 19:12:02 UTC