Re: TAG Comment on: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1. (PR#8028)

Greetings Stuart, you have been engaged with Shane in some dialog on this 
subject. While I believe that Shane has adequately dealt with the concerns 
you have raised, this note is intended as a formal response from the 
Working Group and is intended to deal with the concerns as they affect the 
"XHTML Role Attribute Module". 

Your comments are made against the "XHTML Role Attribute Module" [1] 
documentation. This version of the document includes a normative 
definition of CURIEs that is the source of your concerns. The section on 
CURIEs was included as a matter of convenience and will be removed from 
later versions of the document. Subsequent versions will refer to the 
separate "CURIE Syntax 1.0" [2] document. A new version of "CURIE Syntax 
1.0" [3] was made available on 26 November 2007 and we plan to transition 
to Last Call for "CURIE Syntax 1.0" in the near future.

First Comment:

Please can you clarify your intentions with respect to the use of CURIE's. 
In particular the TAG would like to understand whether the intention is 
that CURIE's be useable in existing elements/attribute where URIReferences 
are places are already in use, or only in new(?) elements and attributes 
where use of CURIEs is specifically called out.

Response to First Comment:

We need to deal with in two parts. From the perspective of the "XHTML Role 
Attribute Module" the situation is, we believe, clear, the @role accepts 
one or more whitespace separated CURIEs.

The new "CURIE Syntax 1.0" spec has been changed to indicate that the 
target audience for this document is Language designers, not the users of 
those Languages. Your comments on the updates to the  "CURIE Syntax 1.0" 
spec would be welcome.

Second Comment:
The TAG is particularly concerned about how existing processors are 
expected to behave in the presense of markup containing CURIEs if they are 
to be used in places where existing processors URIReferences.

Response to Second Comment:

This comment has no relevance to the "XHTML Role Attribute Module".

It is not our intent that a CURIE be used in a context where a 
URIReference is currently used (e.g., @href) unless we explicitly break 
backward compatibility.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1.
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/

Regards, Roland
FBCS, CITP
IBM Software Group, Strategy, Software Standards



skw@hp.com 
Sent by: public-xhtml2-request@w3.org
12/11/2007 14:51

To
public-xhtml2@w3.org
cc
xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com
Subject
TAG Comment on: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1. (PR#8028)








Dear XHTML Editors,

Please can you clarify your intentions with respect to the use of CURIE's. 
In particular the TAG would like to understand whether the intention is 
that CURIE's be useable in existing elements/attribute where URIReferences 
are places are already in use, or only in new(?) elements and attributes 
where use of CURIEs is specifically called out.

The TAG is particularly concerned about how existing processors are 
expected to behave in the presense of markup containing CURIEs if they are 
to be used in places where existing processors URIReferences.

Many thanks,

Stuart Williams
on behalf of W3C TAG
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks 
RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England










Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU