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

Hi Mukul,

Major feature requests would be interesting to discuss.  Anything majorly
broken is worth mentioning, but I suspect most of that has been hashed out
by existing implementors.

I wouldn't put a lot of time and energy into editorial improvements.  And I
wouldn't assume that something is broken until you understand the reasoning
behind it.  There won't be any rewrites until there are new features to
work on and spin up a new working group.

Jonathan

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:09 AM Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>