Re: Comments on WD-curie-20070307

Thanks for this.  The working group has recently decided to prohibit 
un-prefixed CURIEs, thereby solving the entire problem.  A new draft 
reflecting these changes will be available shortly.

Norman Walsh wrote:
> A casual reading of the CURIE spec raised the following technical
> questions in my mind:
>
> "When a CURIE is used in an XML grammar, and the prefix on the CURIE
> is omitted, then the prefix MUST be interpreted as the current default
> XML namespace."
>
> Current practice with respect to unprefixed names where a QName is
> allowed are inconsistent on this point. In XML Schema, they are
> sometimes taken to be in the current default XML namespace. In XSLT,
> they are always in no-namespace. Was it the conscious intent of the
> CURIE specification to remove this flexibility from specifications
> that choose to adopt CURIEs? What is the rationale for this
> restriction?
>
> "When a CURIE is used in a non-XML grammar, the grammar MUST provide a
> mechanism for defining the default prefix."
>
> The default prefix? Do you not mean the default namespace?
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
>   

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 16:02:33 UTC