Re: xml11Names-46

Dear members of TAG, others,

I have argued before in the XMLP WG in [1] and especially [2] that these
higher-level specifications should not depend normatively on any version
of XML, as long as we expect that the spirit of XML doesn't change. At
most, if we expect XML 2 could drop attributes or do something as
radical, the current higher-level specifications could restrict
themselves to XML 1 without specifying any sub-version.

Therefore I suggest that the resolution to this issue be the following
few points:

1) specifications that build on XML should tie themselves to XML 1 or
just XML, and already existing Recommendations should issues erratas to
that effect;
2) it must be clarified in the Infoset specification that it isn't tied
to any particular XML version (or XML 1 sub-version);
3) if it doesn't already exist, a nice URI should be created for the
summary of the XML versions (or XML 1 versions) so that the above can be
achieved simply by replacing the strings "XML 1.0" by "XML" or "XML 1"
and by changing the appropriate links.

What do you think?

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Digital Enterprise Research Institute
                   http://www.deri.at/


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Feb/0016.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Feb/0019.html


On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 22:43, Norman Walsh wrote:
> / "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> was heard to say:
> | Minutes of the TAG's 7 June 2004 teleconf are available
> | as HTML [1] and as text below.
> [...]
> |           Action NW: Write up the issue for the TAG. If there are no
> |           objections to formulation, forward to the XML CG on behalf of
> |           TAG.
> 
> If we examine the intersection of XML 1.0, XML 1.1, XML Schema 1.0, 
> and evolving XSL, XML Query, and XML Protocol specifications, we find
> a small but unquestionably thorny issue.
> 
> This message attempts to describe that issue, identified by the TAG
> as xml11Names-46.
> 
> Michael Sperberg-McQueen provided his own summary[1] of the same issue
> several days before I had a chance to work on this item. This note was
> certainly informed by that analysis and I think Michael for it.
> 
> XML 1.1 makes essentially four changes to XML 1.0:
> 
>  1. It increases the number of characters that may legally appear in Names.
>  2. Adds several new characters that may appear in text if they are
>     encoded as numeric character references (C0 controls except NUL).
>  3. Removes several characters so that they may not appear in text if
>     they are not encoded as numeric character references (C1 controls).
>  4. Adds as a line-end character.
> 
> Of these, points 3 and 4 have no effect beyond the parser. An XML 1.0
> document may contain C1 controls unescaped where they must be escaped
> in an XML 1.1 document, in either case the application sees the
> Unicode characters. In an XML 1.1 document, NEL in text will be
> replaced with a line feed, but that won't generally have any effect to
> the application.
> 
> Point 2 might be important to an application, but given the enormous
> range of Unicode characters that area already valid in text, I expect
> it's going to be a rare application that cares, or even notices, that
> the parser has slipped a few new characters in there.
> 
> Point 1 is the real problem. (And this is a problem that simply could
> not be avoided if XML was going to continue to provide
> non-discriminatory I18N support. Allowing element and attribute names
> to contain characters from new scripts as Unicode evolves was
> necessary.)
> 
> In a nutshell, the problem is this: XML Schema 1.0 normatively refers
> to XML Namespaces 1.0 for the definition of QName and XML Namespaces
> 1.0 normatively refers to XML 1.0 for the definition of Name and XML
> 1.0 has fewer Name characters than XML 1.1.
> 
> That means that by a strict interpretation of the Recommendations, it
> is impossible to write an XML Schema for a document that uses the
> "new" Name characters. And by extension, it is impossible for an
> XPath expression or a protocol document to use XML 1.1.
> 
> This is a problem that must be overcome, and overcome quickly before
> new specs are completed, in order to provide any reasonable hope of
> providing XML 1.1 support to those communities that are relying on it.
> 
> I observe that QNames are now used not only in the XML Activity, but
> also in areas beyond XML. Addressing this problem will have benefit
> not just for XML, but for all users of QNames.
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2004Jun/0015.html

Received on Saturday, 12 June 2004 08:25:23 UTC