- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:38:14 +0100
- To: <xml-names-editor@w3.org>
This is a comment on Namespaces in XML 1.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xml-names11-20020403/ To comply with best practice on the use of non US-ASCII characters in uri-refs, and for compatibility with the following XML specs: XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes section 3.2.17 anyURI http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI XML Linking Language section 5.4 Locator Attribute (href) http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/#link-locators XML 1.1 system identifiers http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata#E26 It should be clarified that an XML namespace is identified by a unicode string from the lexical space of the anyURI datatype from XML schema datatypes. viz: [[[ The ·lexical space· of anyURI is finite-length character sequences which, when the algorithm defined in Section 5.4 of [XML Linking Language] is applied to them, result in strings which are legal URIs according to [RFC 2396], as amended by [RFC 2732]. ]]] Since it is ugly for a core spec to depend on a non-core spec it is probably worth clearly defining this type in the XML 1.1 integral specification, when discussing system identifiers, and then referring to that definition from XML 1.1 Namespaces. Moreover, given that XML 1.1 mandates an early uniform normalization framework, alternative wording which specifically mentions Unicode NFC could be used e.g. by copying the xink text and modifying it a little. (It would of course be helpful if charmod included this text, instead of the non-normative reference to the IRI draft). IMO, there should be no change to the current definition of namespace equality viz: [[[ (things) which identify namespaces are considered identical when they are exactly the same character-for-character. ]]] and the test case I posted to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002May/0001.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002May/0002.html should be considered legal. It is necessary to gain the support of the I18N WG, particularly to the notion of identity, and there should be a corresponding change to the IRI draft to explicitly encourage such a notion of identity when an IRI is being used as an identifier independent of any need to dereference it (as in XML Namespaces and RDF). I note that the RDF Core WG is minded to make a similar change to RDF see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0474.html 15: Issue: rdf-charmod-resources Jeremy Carroll, HP
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2002 08:38:43 UTC