W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-issues@w3.org > July to September 1998

ns5 - lexical equivalence definition

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:11:04 -0600
Message-Id: <199809181511.AA198021465@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
To: xml-names-issues@w3.org

I remember explictly leaving all of the URI issues to reference to
the URI spec and specifically that it was realistic to require implementors
to know about URIs. This wording was in section 6.4 of the 0802 version 
of the spec. No significant objects raised and was retained in the while
the rest of 6 was moved to the appendix as agreed upon by the
editors at Montreal.

As I see it, we have two options:

1) accept it with resolution of what URIs are by reference

2) reject it and send the entire spec to a yet to be formed working group.


Tim writes
>James writes
>>I don't think the lexical equivalence definition "Note that namespace
>>names are URIs, the governing RFCs for which contain rules for
>>establishing lexical equivalence" is workable.  This is way too vague
>>and open-ended for interoperability.   If some implementations treat
>>"http://WWW.W3.ORG/" as the same as "http://www.w3.org/" and some don't,
>>we will not have interoperability. It's not realistic to requires
>>implementations of namespace processors to know about all URI schemes. 
>>I think lexical equivalence should just be defined as
>>character-for-character identity.
>This is a nontrivial issue of policy.  I think that going for either
>character-by-character equivalence (in regards which we should
>reference the as-yet-unpublished i18n WG work) or lexical
>equivalence per the UR* RFC's is plausible and consistent, and
>neither seems dramatically better to me.  Who gets to make this 
>decision?  -Tim
Received on Friday, 18 September 1998 11:16:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:38 UTC