- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:54:46 -0700
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- CC: "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
John Cowan noted: > > > 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". Yes. I agree. > > However, namespaces could define non-normalized IRIs > > as illegal. > > Excellent point. I'll share this with the XML Core unless you > object. No, of course not. Please share. > > > 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. A better way to say this would probably be: if one has gone to the trouble of assembling a DTD that uses (let's say) Tifinagh, it doesn't make much sense to require the namespace for that DTD to use a different script or more restrictive range of characters to reference it. > > > That, of course, is my personal opinion with only a few minutes > thought. > > Sure. > Again, my personal response. I'm sure the WG will take it up in due course. Addison
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 00:55:23 UTC