RE: XML Core -> I18n Core: IRIs as namespace names?

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 Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:www-international-
>] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:19 PM
> To:
> 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

> 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