- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 22:09:29 -0700
- To: "'Richard Tobin'" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, <xml-names-editor@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@w3.org>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
I think there was some resistance to disallowing something that was previously allowed, but this isn't a matter of "disallowing" it is a matter of "recommending against". I'll leave it up to you -- oh editors -- to figure out the politically correct way of accomplishing this task. > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:51 AM > To: xml-names-editor@w3.org > Cc: Larry Masinter; Martin Duerst; Tim Bray > Subject: RE: Response to comment on Namespaces in XML 1.1 > > > > So the "good practice" is not just to avoid use of > > 'confusingly similar IRIs as namespace names', but to > > avoid use of URIs which have equivalent IRIs. > > So, since the difference between IRIs and URIs is which characters > can be left unescaped, this would boil down to "don't use namespace > names with unnecessary escaping". And because of the issue of case > in escapes, one might extend this to "don't use namespace names with > any escaped characters". Does that seem reasonable? > > -- Richard >
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 01:10:12 UTC