W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > October 2007

Comments on: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1 (PR#8026)

From: <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:20:08 -0500
Message-Id: <200710301520.l9UFK8We022138@htmlwg.mn.aptest.com>
To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
CC: xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com

Re: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1.

1) Section 3.1 falls inside the scope of section 3. which claims
normative force. However, sction 3.1.1 indicates "Note that this syntax
definition will ultimately be defined in an external document [CURIE]."

Please complete the work of creating the referenced external document
and remove section 3.1 and its subsections from this document.

I'd further note that the collection of documents:
	a) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/
	b) http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/
	c) http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-curie-20070905/

Does not present a consistent picture of which articulation of CURIEs it
is intended to develop along the REC track. a) cites a version of c)
while b) seems self contained.

2) Section 3.1 states: 

"In order to allow for the scoped expression of role values, this
specification uses a superset of of QNames that allows the contraction
of all URIs (QNames have a syntactic restriction on the sorts of URI
that can be contracted).

These Compact URIs are called CURIEs here."

Please make it *very* clear that CURIEs are a syntactic superset of
QNAMEs only. The value space of CURIEs and QNAMES are very different -
the former being URIs (or maybe IRIs) and the latter being a pair of a
URI and a local name.

3) It is not clear to me where the onus lines to either a) update the
XML Schema Datatype definition of xsd:anyURI to accomodate CURIEs or b)
to define an XML Schema Datatype definition so that the use of CURIE can
be properly specified in XML Schema based language specifications.
However, if CURIEs are to be 1st class citizens that work needs to be
done somewhere.

4) The text here and similar text at
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#s_curies are
different and inconsistent wrt to which URI to use in the absense of a
prefix. Also, the optionality of the ':' differs between the two. I
think the other document has it correct. Please at least align the two
text, and preferably complete the external process of defining CURIEs. 

5) In the absense of a prefix a CURIE is taken has having default ?? of
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#. Given that all prefix expansion is
seem aligned with in-scope namespace decls,  I'd expect the defaulting
to be similarly aligned. Also, given the potentially generic nature of
CURIEs as a construct in other languages, I would rather its defaulting
was not bound to the the XHTML namespace.


Stuart Williams

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks
RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks
RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 15:22:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:00 UTC