- From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:48:36 +0100
- To: xml-names-editor@w3.org
Could we please, when the final version of XML Namespaces 1.1 comes out, have absolute clarity as to whether or not a document is namespace-well-formed if it uses a namespace name that is not a valid IRI Reference. I've just been engaged in a debate where different people reading the current draft came up with completely different conclusions on this point. If such a document is to be rejected by a parser, the spec also needs a much clearer definition of exactly what an IRI is. The present definition says that it's a string that can be converted to a URI Reference by escaping certain characters, but it doesn't say precisely what constitutes a valid URI Reference. RFC 2396 itself says "To understand what is a valid URI, both the grammar and the associated description have to be studied." - which leaves the matter very unclear indeed. For example, http://21345 is not a valid URI: but you need to understand the rules for the "http" scheme to know that, and those rules can change over time. Either the namespace name must be a valid IRI, in which case the spec needs to say exactly what that means. Or it can be any string you like, in which case all the stuff about IRIs could be thrown out as unnecessary verbiage. Michael Kay
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 09:48:40 UTC