- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:20:18 -0400
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
Phillips, Addison scripsit: > 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. We aren't going to extend LEIRIs to anything that doesn't already have them; hence the name "Legacy". Indeed, the use of non-IRIs in LEIRI contexts is discouraged: do you really want to see a DOCTYPE declaration like <!DOCTYPE foo SYSTEM "<>"> (which is equivalent to the relative reference "%3C%3F")? I sure don't. But neither do I want to break backward compatibility by forbidding them. > Also, I would point out that Section 5.3.2.2 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 5.3.2.2 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. Excellent point. I'll share this with the XML Core unless you object. > 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. Okay. > That, of course, is my personal opinion with only a few minutes thought. Sure. -- That you can cover for the plentiful John Cowan and often gaping errors, misconstruals, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and disinformation in your posts cowan@ccil.org through sheer volume --that is another misconception. --Mike to Peter
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 00:21:01 UTC