- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:24:45 +0900
- To: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Hello Richard, URIs/IRIs should not be checked, because there is actually very little to check on the URI/IRI level (as long as you don't get scheme-specific, which generic URI processing should never do). As an example, XML Schema Part 2 says: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI >>>>>>> NOTE: Each URI scheme imposes specialized syntax rules for URIs in that scheme, including restrictions on the syntax of allowed fragement identifiers. Because it is impractical for processors to check that a value is a context-appropriate URI reference, this specification follows the lead of [RFC 2396] (as amended by [RFC 2732]) in this matter: such rules and restrictions are not part of type validity and are not checked by minimally conforming processors. Thus in practice the above definition imposes only very modest obligations on minimally conforming processors. >>>>>>>> Given that XML Schema is explicitly about checking, whereas for Namespaces, a lot of people are concerned about speed, requiring checking for Namespace IRIs would be strange, wouldn't it? Regards, Martin. At 17:09 02/10/23 +0100, Richard Tobin wrote: > > The XML Core WG would like TAG input on whether the desirability of > > adopting IRIs into the web infrastructure early outweighs the > > anticipated disruption of legacy systems. > >We also have the problem of whether Namespace processors should be >required to check that IRIs are syntactically correct. Does the TAG >have a view on whether processors that do not dereference IRIs should >nonetheless be required to check them? > >-- Richard
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 20:44:53 UTC