- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:10:32 -0400
- To: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
John Bradley writes: > I think I understand what you are getting at with the > definition of "anyURI" in XSD 1.1 being a superset of valid > namespace declarations in Namespace Recommendations. Great, thank you. I do apologize that, on 2nd reading, the note I sent had lots of typos including some that made it inaccurate. I think you got the sense anyway, but for the record, here's a cleaned up version of the text to which you responded (changes marked >>>like this<<): I wrote: ---- No, that's not the case. The XML Namespaces Recommendations continue to be the normative >>sources<< 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 >>as a signal that<< a given datum is intended to be a >>URI<< and/or IRI. >>We<< realized early that >> the Schema Datatypes Recommendation<< could >>not!<< 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 >>therefore<< broadly >>indicated<< that the strings >>are<< 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. ---- Please accept my apologies for any confusion. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2008 14:10:10 UTC