- From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:27:36 GMT
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
- Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
> In particular, the position of [ and ] to indicate the extent > of the definitions are still wrong. I'll look for a way to improve this before we get to Rec, but I don't think it's serious enough to worry about now. > Also, the syntax details of the IRI definition are already > out of sync again. This is inevitable, but hopefully things will be more stable by the time we get to Rec, even if the RFC hasn't been published. It -02 still the one we should reference? I think the definition we give should be consistent with the one we can reference, though we could add a statement that it is expected that the private use ranges will be added. > I therefore really wonder what the purpose of your syntax definition is. > For the namespace spec itself, only comparison is what matters, or not? > Is a something like <p:p xmlns:p='@@@:a#a#a'> namespace-well-formed or > not? To what extent is a namespace-aware processor supposed to check > the details of the URI/IRI syntax? We have said that (a) namespace names must be IRIs for well-formedness (b) namespace processors don't have to check. > To what extent do actual implementations > check currently? If a check isn't needed, or isn't done by current > implementations, what's the purpose of the syntax definition in the > spec? We believe that most existing namespace processors don't check. But we also know that some *applications* expect to be able to parse namespace names and store them in URI structures, for example when probing for a schema at that address. (In fact, we have a formal objection to the change to IRIs from someone whose application relies on them being URIs.) I think its reasonable that you should not get an error (other than a retrieval error of course) from a well-formed document when you attempt to use its namespace name as an IRI, so I believe that (a) above is right. We decided on (b) as a result of your comments (on the TAG list if I remember correctly) and in keeping with existing practice. And if we say they must be IRIs, I think we need to give a provisional definition in the absence of an RFC. We can of course revisit this in the light of IRI progress at the PR stage. -- Richard
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 08:27:39 UTC