xmlse:foo slightly substantive comment on CURIEs (both in stand alone document, and in RDFa PR)

Please remove www-html-editor from the address list if doing a reply-to-all on a WG list.

Apologies that this is a late comment on both specifications.
It arises from work we were doing yesterday.

This is a comment on:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-rdfa-syntax-20080904/
and
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080506/
made on behalf of TopQuadrant.

Contents:
  Comment
  Related Draft Comments

Comment:
***
The string xmlse:foo is (arguably) a CURIE according to the RDFa PR
and is not a CURIE according to the CURIE Last Call WD.

See the text:
[[
prefix values MUST be able to be defined using the 'xmlns:' syntax specified in [XMLNAMES].
]]
in the latter, which is not in the former.

Note both documents have the rule:
[[
prefix      :=   NCName
]]
and NCName is linked to
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#NT-NCName

which says 
[[
Prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l, in any case combination, are reserved for use by XML and XML-related specifications.
]]

but since xml:lang is clearly intended to match the QName construct
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#NT-QName
it is, in my view, a misreading of Namespaces in XML to have NCName not matching the string "xmlse"

My preferred fix would be:
Delete the offending text from CURIE.
Add the following clarification to both documents:
[[
Note: A CURIE prefix value may case-insensitively begin in the string "xml", but then it is not permitted to be used as a prefix in an xmlns declaration in an XML document. 
]] 
***

Related Draft Comments:

The background to this observation is further explained in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0028
which is in turn a follow up to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0018
Note msg 0028 took a more positive spin on this observation, but on further reflection this morning led me to this more substantive issue. 
Since this comment arose during my review for the SWD WG, there may be further comment from that WG (e.g. either an endorsement or an explicit non-endorsement).

Jeremy

Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 16:49:20 UTC