- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:18:17 +0100
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
- Cc: <xml-names-editor@w3.org>
Hi, quoting Richard Tobin [1]: > This is a formal response from the XML Core WG to your comments on the > Namespaces in XML 1.1 last call working draft. > > If we haven't heard from you by the end of Monday December 9th, we > will assume for the purposes of our planned CR request that you have > no objection to our resolution. > > ... > > Summary: rejected > > We decided that we should not make a decision on this ourselves, so we > consulted the Technical Architecture Group, and their view was that we > should use IRIs. It is likely that an increasing numbers of > recommendations will specify the use of IRIs; Namespaces is just one > of the first to refer to them explicitly. > > We will include a warning that authors should stick to URIs during > a transitional period. > > -- Richard Tobin, Namespaces 1.1 editor Question: did I miss publication of a TAG finding? If so, where is it? Remarks: - The IRI spec isn't finished. As long as it isn't, no other spec that normitively builds on it can become an RFC / recommendation / standards document. In particular, other specs should not use the term IRI and attempt to come up with their own definition of what a IRI is. (I can't believe I have to say this, but it seems to be necessary...). Now this may have been fixed by now, but the latest draft I can see is still dated September 5 and has it's own definition of IRIs in it [2]. - It has been demonstrated that using IRI (refs) as namespace names breaks existing XML applications (such as XML Schema, schemaLocation attribute) and APIs (JAXP). I'd like to understand why this isn't considered a problem. Wondering, Julian [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002Nov/0020.html> [2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xml-names11-20020905/#IRIs> -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 15:20:48 UTC