W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Namespaces 1.0: URI syntax a NSC

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:45:14 +0200
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <aik1e5d66vss0oebq8mj4qkhainilee4fm@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>Please let us know if you are willing to accept this resolution in the
>current instance, pending the outcome of any further higher-level

The XML 1.0 specification and the Namespaces in XML 1.0 specification in
essence share the same structure and since the Second Edition also the
same terminology. Conformance of documents is defined through production
rules in a formal grammar, and where the formal grammar cannot express
requirements, the grammar is amended through Constraints in prose. The
terms "valid" and "well-formed" are used for documents meeting certain

The XML 1.0 specification considers a document well-formed if it matches
a certain grammar production, meets all the well-formedness constraints,
and all referenced parsed entities are well-formed. Namespaces in XML
does not phrase the definition of namespace-well-formedness quite like
that, but if you read the specification assuming matching the grammar
and meeting the namespace constraints gives you a namespace-well-formed
document, you will find little difference with the actual definition.

Indeed the errata of Namespaces in XML 1.0 Second Edition introduces new
namespace constraints to support this reading (items NE14 and NE19) even
though the prose already spells the relevant requirements out. The URI
syntax requirement is probably the only requirement not expressed in the
grammar or a namespace constraint. If "well-formed" means "grammar and
constraints" in both specifications then they are easier to understand
than if it means "grammar and constraints" for one specification and
"grammar and constraints and URI syntax" in the other specification.

Your response is not acceptable to me as you are failing to cite reasons
why the change should not be made; all you said is that it is not abso-
lutely necessary to make it. A proper response would explain for example
the difference between this change and analogous changes for NE14 and
NE19. I believe the Working Group's decision and response should be
reviewed by an independent third party; please mark this issue as such.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 21:45:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:36 UTC