- From: <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:06:39 -0500
- To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
- CC: xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com
> -----Original Message----- > From: Roland Merrick [mailto:roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, 2008 July 31 11:09 > To: ht@w3.org; PGrosso@ptc.com > Cc: steven.pemberton@cwi.nl; ht@w3.org > Subject: Fw: Last call announcement: CURIEs > > Greetings, it appears that we failed to complete the > requirements of the process for the recent Last of CURIE > Syntax 1.0 by failing to obtain agreement to review the > document and provide feedback by some of the groups we > identified as those we would value review by. > > That said, we are particularly interested in a review by > XML Core Working Group. Various members of the XML Core WG have reviewed the CURIE specification at several stages of development, and the WG has discussed CURIEs among ourselves several times. There is disagreement among the WG members about the value of CURIEs. While some members don't object to them as long as it isn't claimed that a CURIE is a namespace, others fear the similarity with QNames will be confusing at best and possibly problematic for certain applications and tools, and several of us think CURIEs are a bad idea. At this time, while most of the XML Core WG would rather not have CURIEs continue to be proposed and used, we have resigned ourselves to the probability that they will go forward, and we have decided not to make a formal objection. However, we would appreciate that our reluctance be brought to the attention of the W3C staff at the appropriate time in the progression of this specification so that no one can say that the XML Core WG had no problems with the idea of CURIEs. Paul Grosso for the XML Core WG
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 14:07:28 UTC