RE: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy

>Yes, the addition of xml:id tag changes XML ins such a way that
>new documents with xml:id attributes are not XML 1.0 documents,
>if you interpret the XML1.0 spec to rule out the use of attributes
>in the XML namespace.

Well, the issue is larger than just what happens to the XML namespace.
But constraining to that context for a moment, the issue is not
whether XML 1.0 forbids use of attributes in the xml namespace,
since the namespace rec was deliberately constructed to account
for lang and space.

To frame the issue in a way that Niels Bohr might have:  isn't it 
necessary to first decide whether to put id into the namespace before 
we attempt to reason about whether or not XML 1.0 attributes in the 
xml namespace?

>In general, the emphasis up to CR is on the WG simply
>setting accurate expectations for the sorts of changes to be made.
>Maybe that should be continued through to Rec.

>It sound as though the TAG should consider this.

>Tim BL

Thanks for saying so.  Isn't it clear from that 
conventions document that jumping from one rec 
to the next is a *larger* move than jumping from
one working draft to the next?

The problem with "emphasizing" this sort of thing
is that the pub rules and namespace conventions
have already emphasized things that working groups
are stunningly free to ignore.

Perhaps if "further emphasis" is indeed the road
travelled, then it could at least be made clear that
working groups should seriously consider whether their
markup will ever be used in a security context.  It
makes no sense to have an XML signature that chokes
on a single-bit change only to give working groups
the power to make qualitatively larger changes in
the meaning of signed content.

Thanks for your time,
John Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Product Architect and Research Scientist
PureEdge Solutions Inc.

Received on Sunday, 13 February 2005 00:13:28 UTC