Re: Fwd: RE: xml:rel, xml:href, xml:type

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:55:48AM -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
> The response to our response:
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	RE: xml:rel, xml:href, xml:type
> Resent-Date: 	Thu, 17 May 2012 15:50:09 +0000
> Resent-From: 	xml-editor@w3.org
> Date: 	Thu, 17 May 2012 15:49:31 +0000
> From: 	Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
> To: 	Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
> CC: 	xml-editor@w3.org <xml-editor@w3.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Thanks for considering this topic.  I would like to add @xml:hreflang and @xml:src
> to the proposal (see below).
> 
> > Hypertext linking outside of the document is not something
> > which needs action at the parser level, so it doesn't need to
> > be specified in the core XML specification.
> 
> Well that is disappointing, but not surprising.  Can you clarify for
> me if xml:base is actioned by the parser?    It would seem that xml:base
> manages the location of the current representation/element on the web,
> so I would have thought the location and nature of referenced resources
> would also be similarly treated  ie not processed by the parser specifically,
> but passed on to the application at least.

  1/ xml:base was there from day one in the spec, adding something to
     the spec nearly 15 years after its first REC is not the same
     process.
  2/ the base is low level information part of the data needed to make
     sense of the infoset delivered by the parser (e.g. how to interpret
     URI references embedded in the content)


> I note that the sax parser API appears to use the XML namespace as a constant,
> http://www.saxproject.org/apidoc/org/xml/sax/helpers/NamespaceSupport.html#XMLNS
> http://xerces.apache.org/xerces2-j/javadocs/api/org/xml/sax/helpers/NamespaceSupport.html#XMLNS
> which is more or less the mechanism needed to gain the benefit of the use
> of the xml namespace, as I see it.  So, while the interpreting
> what is in the xml namespace require xml application support, the
> transmission of those semantics seems to flow through the parser, like xml:base
> does, without having specific actions taken by the parser.

  I see absolutely no relationship with the intitial suggestion,
as a parser author/maintainer I think base and namespace are of course
crucial information I need to to process within the parser before
delivering it to the client when parsing XML data. I certainly don't
see a link attribute at the same level.

> > The existing XLink Recommendation [1] already defines
> > namespaced markup for hypertext linking that would appear to
> > address your requirements.  In fact, XLink defines an
> > xlink:href attribute that appears to parallel your suggested
> > xml:href attribute.
> 
> The choice of the xml namespace may seem odd, but it does have the advantage
> of being syntactically recognizable and immutable, and semantically reserved and seems
> to be understood or at least ignored by xml processors.

  XLink is recognizable. The namespace name associated is immutable.
namespace MUST not be expected to be recognized based on suffix.
If the push for using xml: is just motivated by the attempt to
not resolve to the namespace name then I think the whole proposition
is just unreasonable.

  Sorry, I really don't want to add random extra vocabulary in the
xml: namespace when there is already standardized equivalent in other
namespaces.

    Thanks for the suggestion, but no,


Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/

Received on Sunday, 20 May 2012 10:44:01 UTC