- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:54:20 +0100
- To: www-html-editor@w3.org
- Cc: "Shane P. McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've looked through the new draft [1], and without prejudice to any official TAG response, I have one remaining personal issue. I see that you have clarified the syntax so that it is clear that e.g. :foo is a valid CURIE. But the discussion of what IRI a CURIE represents doesn't respect the distinction you are depending on wrt 'foo' vs. ':foo', namely "default prefix" versus "default namespace" (which is pretty obscure, it has to be said -- do you really _have_ to do this? It blows the syntactic parallel between element names/attribute names/QNames and CURIES. . .). In particular, no mention of default namespace is made in the crucial paragraph (the one which begins "CURIEs are an abbreviation for strings"). I suggest you separate out and promote the definition of the mapping, for instance give a three-bullet quasi-formal specification of the CURIE->IRI mapping, possibly twice (once for XML languages and once for non-XML languages), _before_ this paragraph, possibly in its own sub-section. ht [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-curie-20081008/ - -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFI93/NkjnJixAXWBoRAtbsAJ4gfyjO3Rh9qivw9dce6SinBewt1ACeMMzj UOhfrca3MEKBFggAmIKUrh0= =oPNO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 17:55:00 UTC