Re: comments on the XML Canonical specification

John Boyer wrote:
> Hi Lauren,
> 1) namespace prefixes
> Actually, the language around namespaces was already softened once to the
> state it is in now from the state of saying it is flat out wrong.

Thank you.

> In the former document, I actually presented a theorem/proof pair to show
> how namespace rewriting was actively harmful to some documents.  Some felt
> it was 'too serious' so we toned it down, but the argument remains in prose.
> I would suggest that you consider the argument again because it is quite
> irrefutable.  Taking the position that other specs are wrong if they do not
> regard this information as syntax sugar seems to be an undefendable
> position.  To wit, we would have to throw away, XSLT, XPointer and XPath.  I
> really don't think that's going to happen at this point.

It is harmful to some documents and specifications, but not all
documents and applications. This doesn't mean that those applications
that do not need such a dependency are wrong, which is what the current
language implies. I don't want DOM applications that do treat the prefix
as syntactic sugar (since those authors read the Namespaces Rec and
implemented it, without regard to XPath etc) to be labelled as being
wrong. So my suggestion, again, is to come up with some language that is
neutral on this point.

> 2) relative to absolute URIs
> I will be *very* happy to see this as an erratum, but I cannot remove the
> statement from c14n until that erratum is published. I am hoping this occurs
> before C14N goes to candidate rec.

That is probably something you should pass on to the XSL WG. 


Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 14:13:40 UTC