Re: HRRI vs IRI in XML

* Martin Duerst wrote:
>[There is potentially another interpretation of the grammar in the
>XML spec, which is that the Char production
>(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-Char) does not restrict the
>contents of SystemLiteral, but in that case, it would also not
>restrict the contens of http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-CharData,
>which would mean that arbitrary element content could contain
>such control characters including NUL characters/bytes.
>I think it would probably be best to fix this by explicitly
>using the Char production in SystemLiteral and the other
>relevant places. If I need to submit an erratum, please tell
>me where.]

You missed section six of the specification which defines that character
classes only ever match something that matches the Char production. As
an aside, I do not think the question of system identifiers is relevant
to whether we need "HRRIs" or not, as Norman put it.

My understanding is that the XML Core Working Group wants to use "HRRIs"
in many other places, like xml:base, XLink, XInclude, etc. We would then
have elements and attributes in XML languages which use resource identi-
fiers as values, but differ in what strings you can put there and how
they would be processed: some would take HRRIs, some IRIs, some anyURIs,
and so on.

It seems clear to me having a "HRRI" specification would make sense only
if having multiple definitions for resource identifier-valued attributes
and elements is a good thing, or if there is community consensus to use
"HRRIs" everywhere.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Friday, 10 August 2007 06:10:54 UTC