Re: [DM30] namespace names defined appears to be non-normative

Hi Mike,
    First of all, I apologize for a misspelled subject text. It should have
been, "[DM30] namespace names *definition* appears to be non-normative".

As usual, your explanation answers my query. Many thanks for the answer.

For the future, I'll keep in mind that, relevant WG isn't functioning these
days. But I hope, readers of this list would be interested to know
potentially valid errata suggestions.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:

> Firstly, there is no WG (this is therefore a personal response). While the
> status section of the document invites readers to report errors, the
> document is now a final Recommendation and the time for suggesting
> improvements has long passed.
>
> Secondly, the section you cite is carefully worded (and was discussed at
> length) to give implementors advice about how to deal with the conflicting
> requirements of other published specifications, concerning the exact
> definition of what is allowed in a namespace name. The solution is
> imperfect, but it can't be resolved without changing several other
> established W3C and IETF specs, and the final advice is unambiguous:
>
> implementations may reject character strings that are not valid URIs or
> IRIs, but they are not required to do so
>
> If there were still a WG and if it looked at the section again I don't
> think it would want to change that advice.
>
> My personal advice is: if you're a user, stick to valid URIs. If you're an
> implementor, be liberal in what you accept.
>
> The reason we allow implementations to reject character strings that are
> not valid URIs or IRIs is that we want to allow implementations to use
> third-party libraries (for example, XML parsers or XSD 1.0 schema
> processors) that impose such restrictions.
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica






-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi