- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:04:35 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10795
Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mike@saxonica.com
--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2010-09-28 23:04:34 UTC ---
I have some sympathy because (a) the distinction between FODC0002 and FODC0005
is extremely and unnecessarily subtle; (b) the RFCs are pretty impenetrable as
to what the exact rules are, (c) the RFC's seem to differ from each other, and
(d) our specs are sometimes fuzzy as to which RFC wins.
See for example
http://www.highdots.com/forums/html/rfc3986-backslash-uri-urls-178316.html
However, I believe that under the definition of "URI" contained in F+O PER
section 1.7, both abc\def and \abc\def are valid:
Within this specification, the term "URI" refers to Universal Resource
Identifiers as defined in [RFC 3986] and extended in [RFC 3987] with a new name
"IRI". The term "URI Reference", unless otherwise stated, refers to a string in
the lexical space of the xs:anyURI datatype as defined in [XML Schema Part 2:
Datatypes Second Edition]. Note that this means, in practice, that where this
specification requires a "URI Reference", an IRI as defined in [RFC 3987] will
be accepted, provided that other relevant specifications also permit an IRI.
The term URI has been retained in preference to IRI to avoid introducing new
names for concepts such as "Base URI" that are defined or referenced across the
whole family of XML specifications. Note also that the definition of xs:anyURI
is a wider definition than the definition in [RFC 3987]; for example it does
not require non-ASCII characters to be escaped.
I note in passing that the spec of fn:doc() (like many other places in our
specs) occasionally uses "URI" when it means "URI Reference" (thus apparently
disallowing relative references) but I don't think many readers will be misled
by this and it's not directly pertinent to this bug report. Equally, I find it
hard to see why the above paragraph defines "URI" by reference to RFC 3987, and
"URI Reference" by reference to XSD 1.0 Part 2.
So: I have sympathy with your argument, but only really on the basis that the
distinction between FODC0002 and FODC0005 is too subtle for us to reasonably
expect implementors to get it right - and if that's the case, we should get rid
of the distinction.
Michael Kay
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 23:04:37 UTC