Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

Hi Dan,

I noticed the same thing last week. Michael Hausenblas sent a message[1] to
the RDF in XHTML mailing list. The conclusion was that this is an error.

Cheers,
Lin

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2010Jan/0062.html



On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 00:06 +0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at.
> >
> > Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using
> > 'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec?
>
> No... I'm saying: the definition of Name in XML went
> from, roughly, "only prescribe characters" to "everything except
> disallowed characters". See http://cmsmcq.com/mib/?p=606
> for some relevant commentary.
>
> And NCName in the XML namespaces spec is defined in terms of
> Name from XML. and CURIE is defined in terms of NCName from namespaces.
>
> I tried to find a relevant test case in
>  http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/
> but I got lost in the maze.
>
>
> XML and Namespaces got updated, but evidently that didn't
> complete until just after RDFa was cooked.
>
>
> > If so, I don't see how it could, since 'prefix' needs to be the
> > 'non-colon' version of 'Name', i.e., 'NCName'. This is only defined in
> > the XML Namespaces spec, as far as I know.
> >
> > But that might not be what you mean...have I missed what you're driving
> at?
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mark
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>
>