- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:29:47 -0800
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Tim, Is there in effect a substitution rule being applied to xml:id in xml:id unaware XML 1.0 processors? Seems like the substitution rule is roughly to treat xml:* attributes as regular attributes, modulo the extra complications. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Tim Berners-Lee > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 7:52 AM > To: John Boyer > Cc: www-tag@w3.org; Bjoern Hoehrmann > Subject: Re: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy > > > > On Feb 9, 2005, at 16:34, John Boyer wrote: > > > > > Dear TAG, > > > > Some of you may be aware that an issue with the > > xml:id specification began erupting the day > > before it became a CR. > > > > The issue has flowered nicely into a more general > > discussion of what namespaces mean and what is > > the W3C policy regarding their assignment in > > recommendation track documents. > > > > I've been asked to provide this information to you, > > and as PureEdge AC rep I'd like to please request that > > the TAG make a formal statement to all working groups > > regarding these issues as soon as possible. > > > > The kernel of the issue is my interpretation of > > the definition of namespace as it appears in the > > Namespaces recommendation. The definition is that > > a namespace is a collection of names *identified* > > by a URI. So, for example, the namespace > > ({lang, space}, http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace) > > > > is not equal to > > > > ({lang, space, base, id}, http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace) > > > > The W3C director directed the W3C to this interpretation in > > http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri, which states that a recommendation > > cannot add more than clarifications and bug fixes without changing > > the namespace URI. > > Good point. > Well,it says that changes should not be done which break existing > data or code which reads it. > > 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. > > I think the argument here is that actual implementations > (except canon'n) all treat xml:id as a normal attribute, > and so they don't break. But of course it is more complicated than > that. > > 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, > > John Boyer, Ph.D. > > Senior Product Architect and Research Scientist > > PureEdge Solutions Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 17:29:54 UTC