W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > November 2002

Re: XSL WG Comments on Namespace in XML 1.1

From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 18:40:33 GMT
Message-Id: <200211281840.SAA20135@sorley.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
To: w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org
Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org

This is a formal response from the XML Core WG to your comments on the
Namespaces in XML 1.1 last call working draft.

If we haven't heard from you by the end of Monday December 9th, we
will assume for the purposes of our planned CR request that you have
no objection to our resolution.

Commenter email address: w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org

> Subject: XSL WG Comments on Namespace in XML 1.1
> 
> XSL WG Comments on Namespace in XML 1.1
> 
> 1. Section 1. 
> "Names from XML namespaces may appear as qualified names, which may
> contain a single colon separating the name into a namespace prefix and
> a local part. The prefix, which ..."
> 
> Should the second sentence say something about the namespace of a name
> without a prefix?

Summary: no longer relevant

Much of this section has been re-written, and the text you quote is
no lonfer present in that form.

> 2. Section 2. 
> "[Definition: A namespace is declared using a family of reserved
> attributes.  Such an attribute's name must either be xmlns or have
> xmlns: as a prefix. ..."
> 
> In the second sentence, xmlns: should be changed to xmlns.

Summary: accepted in principle

We instead changed "have xmlns: as a prefix" to "begin xmlns:".

> 3. Section 5.1
> "The attribute value in a namespace declaration for a prefix may be
> empty. This has the effect, within the scope of the declaration, of
> removing any association of the prefix with a namespace name. Further
> declarations may re-declare the prefix again:"
> 
> The ability to undeclare namespaces creates the possibility of
> creating InfoSets that cannot be serialized as XML 1.0. We need to
> understand how the InfoSet will tackle this problem: will there be
> different InfoSets for XML 1.0 and XML 1.1, or will there be a single
> InfoSet with rules for mapping it to both XML 1.0 and 1.1?

It is true that prefix undeclaring does allow you to create Infosets
that cannot be serialized as XML 1.0.  But note that

 - other aspects of XML 1.1 also have this effect (new name characters
   in particular)

 - this situation already exists in the XPath data model, and the
   solution is the same: these infosets can be serialized inaccurately
   in the sense that there will be extra namespace bindings.  Adding
   namespace prefix undeclaring will allow these more accurate
   serialization of XSLT output as XML 1.1.

We expect to issue a minor update to the Infoset spec, mentioning
prefix undeclaring.  There will not be two Infosets, but some Infosets
will not be accurately serializable as XML 1.1.

> 4. Section 7.
> "Some characters are disallowed in URI references, even if they are
> allowed in XML; the disallowed characters, according to [RFC2396] and
> [RFC2732], are the control characters #x0 to #x1F ..."
> 
> The sentence implies control characters #x0 to #x1F are allowed in
> XML, but only #x9, #xA, and #xD are allowed in this range.

Summary: no longer relevant

This section has been substantially revised following input from the
I18N group.

> 5. Section 7.
> Should there be reference to the Internet-Draft on IRI's? 

Summary: accepted

There will be in the CR draft.

> 6. Appendix A.
> A reference to XML 1.1 should be added.

Summary: accepted

There will be in the CR draft (at present, the XML 1.1 draft exists
only as a list of changes, but that will change with CR).

-- Richard Tobin, Namespaces 1.1 editor
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 13:40:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:27 UTC