- From: <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:23:47 -0500
- To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
- CC: xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com
Hello, I have a problem with a MUST requirement. I realize the document is in CR, but I only just noticed it when thinking about adding CURIE support to OWL/XML: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization In particular: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-curie-20090116/#s_syntax """When CURIES are used in an XML-based host language, and that host language supports XML Namespaces, prefix values MUST be able to be defined using the 'xmlns:' syntax specified in [XMLNAMES]. Such host languages MAY also provide additional prefix mapping definition mechanisms.""" This is unnecessarily restrictive. I want to add a prefix declaration mechanism and I want to keep namespace declarations out of the picture. I see no reason for this not to be possible, other than consistency with other XML formats. But I don't *want* that consistency. I want OWL/XML processors not to have to deal with two dereferencing mechanisms for CURIEs and I want OWL/XML to use namespaces *solely* for element and attribute names (to avoid confusing syntax and content). The likely alternative is not to have CURIEs at all. Which seems silly. Also, it's just a bit otiose. What XML language *doesn't* ,in some sense, support XML Namespaces? What if I have a non-namespaced format which has an open content model? If I put some SVG in there do I suddenly have to support namespace prefix lookups? One great advantage of CURIEs is, finally, a possibility of *divorcing* XML Namespaces and abbreviating URIs. Yet the spec *requires* confusing them. Please change this. I'm fine with a SHOULD, though I think that's wrong. I would think my organization would oppose going to PR without this change. I apologize for not noting this point sooner. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 14:26:01 UTC