- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:07:51 -0400
- To: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
- Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, www-tag@w3.org
Let me respond to your points in reverse order, as the 2nd seems to be the more fundamental: > Perhaps some mention should be made in http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11 > that it is no longer authoritative. > > I guess that makes the answer to Julian's original question. > > No http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/ is not "the namespaces > specification for XML 1.1", http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/ > should be used. No, that's not the case. The XML Namespaces Recommendations continue to be the normative source on what is and is not a legal namespace in an XML document. XML Schema does define an anyURI type that is intended to be useful to signal that a given datum is intended to be a URIs and/or IRI. IWe realized early that schema datatypes could provide practical validation rules that would in fact reject all illegal IRIs while accepting all correct ones. As a trivial example, the URI specifications delegate to the specifications for particular schemes for syntax details, and we knew there was no way we wanted to put in separate rules for http, mailto, tel, etc. XSD 1.0 broadly indicates that the strings were to be validated as URIs, but realizing that this was a fuzzy and ultimately impractical burden to put on processors, the rules are loosened in XSD 1.1, which now accepts any string of legal XML characters. I have tried to be careful that when responding to email questions in this thread about legal namespaces I've referred to the Namespaces Recommendation, and where questions have been raised about XSD anyURI I've given the rules for that. I believe I did mention once that xsd:anyURI can be used to validate namespaces, but I meant that only to indicate that IRIs are not excluded. The normative rules for namespaces continue to be in the Namespaces Recommendations. > So I conclude that contrary to http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#reluri > , the recommendation > http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xppa is not making it into XSD 1.1? Again, we're crossing up Namespaces Recommendations and XSD 1.1. The pertinent normative reference is http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#iri-use, which says: "The use of relative IRI references, including same-document references, in namespace declarations is deprecated. " XSD 1.1 in no way supercedes that. It merely defines a type that can be used to declare one's intention that a data value be considered as an IRI/URI. The validation semantics are, for better or worse, essentially a no-op, but those affect only what will be accepted during schema validation. They in no way alter what's a legal URI, IRI or namespace name, or remove the deprecation of relative namespace names. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 22:07:15 UTC