- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:36:22 +0900
- To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- CC: public-i18n-core@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org, "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
Hi John again, we discussed the issue at our call yesterday, see http://www.w3.org/2007/09/25-core-minutes#item09 . We would like to make you aware of two aspects of the topic: First, IRIs are actually a subset of what XLink does (which is referenced by XML Schema 1.0). Second: our real comment on your specification is not "reference IRI instead of anyURI" ,but rather: it is not clear to us whether IRI or XML Schema xsd:anyURI support is required normatively or depends on the host language(s) of XForms 1.. We would prefer that you mention IRI-flavored items explicitly in that context, rather than changing the definition from anyURI to RFC 3987. Felix Felix Sasaki wrote: > > Hi John, > > John Boyer wrote: >> >> Hi Felix, >> >> I would like to take this opportunity to provide a little context >> for the response than that which appeared in the prior response. I >> would then like to see whether that context helps to make the >> response more satisfactory for now. >> >> First, the spec that we normatively reference, XML Schema 1.0 Second >> Edition, defines xs:anyURI datatype in terms of RFC 2396, RFC 2732, >> and the algorithm in Section 5.4 of XLink [1]. It does not refer to >> RFC 3987 at all, as this document came out after XML Schema 1.0 >> Second Edition. > > that's exactly the point: XML Schema 1.0 does not refer to RFC 3987, > since RFC 3987 was too late. Nevertheless, the xs:anyURI data type was > designed to be compatible with the upcoming IRI specification. > >> >> >> The working group decided to defer to a future version upgrading the >> XML Schema engines required by XForms processors and design tools. > in my opinion, no upgrade of the XML Schema engines is necessary. The > reason that XML Schema 1.0 does not cite the IRI spec, is due to > timing (which you described above), not due to technical issues. > >> >> And the more important fact, which responds to your response, is that >> the working group decided that upgrading to XPath 2.0 is a future >> feature scheduled for XForms 2.0, so the citation you gave of XPath >> 2.0 amounts to another pointer to a feature that is not within the >> scope of XForms 1.1. > > I hope that my explanation above makes clear that a reference to IRI > will not require an implementation change for XML Schema engines > required by XForms processors. > >> In other words, all of this functionality is amounting to requests >> for features that are not in the XForms 1.1 requirements >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms-11-req/). > > Me / the i18n core Working Group don't have a new feature request, but > a request for clarification in existing features. My reference to > XPath 2.0 also was a reference to a clarifying note in that > specification, and not a request to implement features unique to it. > >> >> So, our response was not rejecting the request, but rather committing >> to adding this issue into the requirements stream of the appropriate >> version of XForms containing numerous requirements related to this >> request, >> >> Could you let us know if this information makes it possible to accept >> the resolution (understood grudgingly) with the understanding that it >> is on the agenda for our future. > > I'm sorry, but personally I'm not yet convinced. Other participants > from the i18n core WG might provide input on this thread, and we will > come back with a Working Group reply after our next call this week > (Tuesday). > > Felix > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 07:36:39 UTC