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

Hi, I am half for, half against:
* I do not quite support the backporting because of the problems for locating international resources without a computer that supports the various character sets--unless punycode is used (I read http://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/)--but this can be taken care of if two domain names are registered, and this allows persons who are illiterate in ascii but literate in their language to use the internet easily. 
* Otherwise I support the backporting of internationalized resource identifiers because modern browsers do implement some protections against such spoofing-- but I do not know how the multilingual domain registration authorities are handling the security problems right now (it can be handled very simply from their end; do organizations like http://www.minc.org/Default.aspx?&lang=en 's address this? I sort of think it should be addressed before more internationalization of domain names goes forward)
 
So there is my half-half vote.
 
It would be for if I saw that registering authorities had a security standard.
 
Thanks.
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com > From: cowan@ccil.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.
That's what I am I guess??
 
> 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> 
--CEW