- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:57:47 -0700
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
- CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Hello John, Thank you for the request. I have copied the Internationalization Core (public) list on this message. We would be glad to provide a comment on this, as well as consider comments from the Internationalization Interest Group (IG), which is to say this (www-international) mailing list. Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: www-international-request@w3.org [mailto:www-international- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:19 PM > To: www-international@w3.org > Subject: XML Core -> I18n Core: IRIs as namespace names? > > > This is an official request for comment from the W3C XML Core WG to > the > XML I18n Core WG, but since both groups operate publicly, I'm > posting > it here rather than using W3C channels. Comment from other > interested > parties is welcomed. I'd appreciate it if someone on Core I18n put > a > pointer to it on the Core I18n list. > > As you probably know, XML Core is backporting the extended set of > name > characters from XML 1.1 to the 5th edition of XML 1.0, thus making > them > available to XML 1.0 users. The other features of XML 1.1 are not > being > backported at this time. > > However, we are considering backporting features of XML Namespaces > 1.1 > (which is used exclusively with XML 1.1 documents) to XML > Namespaces 1.0 > (which is used exclusively with XML 1.0 documents). The relevant > feature > is allowing XML namespace names to be IRIs rather than URIs. > > Point in favor: allowing an IRI permits the namespace name (which > is used > only for naming, not for retrieval) to be at least partly > meaningful in > languages other than English. > > Point against: supporting full Unicode allows both visual spoofing > and > composed-vs.-decomposed character spoofing of namespace names, > possibly > causing a document which appears to be in one namespace to be > validated > against the schema for another namespace. Namespace names are > compared > using codepoint-by-codepoint equality only, and this will not be > changed. > > What do you think? Should we allow IRIs? > > -- > John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan > Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of > a computer > mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. > Formality > is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful > inaction, > as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create > a contract. > --Specht v. Netscape
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 23:58:29 UTC