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

(this is a personal comment)

I note that XML Namespaces 1.1 2e actually does reference IRI (RFC 3987), while several of the XML Base specifications reference something much like an IRI (which has been given the name "LEIRI"). It's probably not a good idea to have both concepts running loose at the same time.

Also, I would point out that Section of IRI does address normalization, at least to some degree. Requiring NFC in namespace IRIs would address the composed-v-decomposed and combining-mark-reordering attacks (it would not address all visual spoof attacks---nothing can completely insulate a system from such an attack, however, even in ASCII). I know that does not require NFC (in fact, it requires that late normalization to NFC *not* be done during IRI comparison). However, namespaces could define non-normalized IRIs as illegal.

That said, I think using IRIs for namespaces makes a lot of sense---especially if we allow elements, attributes, and so forth to use the full range of Unicode. And since XLink and other specs use (LE)IRI, it would make some sense to port it.

That, of course, is my personal opinion with only a few minutes thought.


Addison Phillips

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 Thursday, 14 August 2008 00:11:05 UTC