- From: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:05:58 +0000
- To: skw@hp.com
- Cc: public-xhtml2@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org, xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com
- Message-ID: <OFF75107FF.0B7B4D22-ON802573A1.0056A7E8-802573A1.005DF158@uk.ibm.com>
Greetings Stuart, you have been engaged with Shane in some dialog on this subject. While I believe that Shane has adequately dealt with the concerns you have raised, this note is intended as a formal response from the Working Group and is intended to deal with the concerns as they affect the "XHTML Role Attribute Module". Your comments are made against the "XHTML Role Attribute Module" [1] documentation. This version of the document includes a normative definition of CURIEs that is the source of your concerns. The section on CURIEs was included as a matter of convenience and will be removed from later versions of the document. Subsequent versions will refer to the separate "CURIE Syntax 1.0" [2] document. A new version of "CURIE Syntax 1.0" [3] was made available on 26 November 2007 and we plan to transition to Last Call for "CURIE Syntax 1.0" in the near future. First Comment: Please can you clarify your intentions with respect to the use of CURIE's. In particular the TAG would like to understand whether the intention is that CURIE's be useable in existing elements/attribute where URIReferences are places are already in use, or only in new(?) elements and attributes where use of CURIEs is specifically called out. Response to First Comment: We need to deal with in two parts. From the perspective of the "XHTML Role Attribute Module" the situation is, we believe, clear, the @role accepts one or more whitespace separated CURIEs. The new "CURIE Syntax 1.0" spec has been changed to indicate that the target audience for this document is Language designers, not the users of those Languages. Your comments on the updates to the "CURIE Syntax 1.0" spec would be welcome. Second Comment: The TAG is particularly concerned about how existing processors are expected to behave in the presense of markup containing CURIEs if they are to be used in places where existing processors URIReferences. Response to Second Comment: This comment has no relevance to the "XHTML Role Attribute Module". It is not our intent that a CURIE be used in a context where a URIReference is currently used (e.g., @href) unless we explicitly break backward compatibility. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1. [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ Regards, Roland FBCS, CITP IBM Software Group, Strategy, Software Standards skw@hp.com Sent by: public-xhtml2-request@w3.org 12/11/2007 14:51 To public-xhtml2@w3.org cc xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com Subject TAG Comment on: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1. (PR#8028) Dear XHTML Editors, Please can you clarify your intentions with respect to the use of CURIE's. In particular the TAG would like to understand whether the intention is that CURIE's be useable in existing elements/attribute where URIReferences are places are already in use, or only in new(?) elements and attributes where use of CURIEs is specifically called out. The TAG is particularly concerned about how existing processors are expected to behave in the presense of markup containing CURIEs if they are to be used in places where existing processors URIReferences. Many thanks, Stuart Williams on behalf of W3C TAG -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 17:06:51 UTC