- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:11:54 +0100
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, <timbl@w3.org>, <steve@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <webreq@w3.org>, <chairs@w3.org>, <w3t-comm@w3.org>, <michelsu@microsoft.com>
On Monday, March 17, 2008, 3:49:30 PM, John wrote: JC> Chris Lilley scripsit: >> Well, thats a far cry from what Martin said. Since the primary places >> SVG, for instance, uses IRIs is XLink (15 or so elements are XLink >> simple links) and the other places are XML Base and ... erm, can't >> think of any others, that means they are **all** LEIRI. JC> Well, yes, transitively. For that matter, *any* XML document (okay, JC> except SOAP ones) can contain a DOCTYPE declaration, and therefore can JC> contain LEIRIs. But I am talking about which specifications should JC> mention LEIRIs. JC> If SVG inherits its links from XLink and its base URI specifier from XML JC> Base, Yes. More specifically, SVG 1.1 gets XLink from XLink 1.0 and SVG Tiny 1.2 gets XLink form XLink 1.1. JC> then SVG documents can contain LEIRIs. But that doesn't mean that JC> SVG should *specify* LEIRIs. It sounds as if you are saying that SVG should specify a subset of what XLink and XML Base allow. So we say they accept an IRI. Which is simple, but then we catch flack for embrace-and-extend (well ok embrace-and-subset). Or we could specify differently for content conformance (IRI only) and processors (LEIRI). Not very nice either. JC> Nor does it mean that a spec which refers JC> *directly* to URIs or IRIs should be made to refer to LEIRIs, either. JC> That last is the key point. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 15:12:35 UTC