- From: Rolf H. Nelson <rnelson@tux.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:00:33 -0400 (EDT)
- To: xml-names-issues@w3.org
- cc: rnelson@w3.org
The 16 September draft looks good to me. Here are some extremely minor editorial comments. A) section 2: "The attvalue in the nsdecl production is a URI ..." I would change this to "Either a URI or an empty string". I don't believe that an "empty URI" is a valid example of a URI. RFC 2396, which you cite, refers to "empty URI references" that refer to the beginning of the current document, but I don't think that is what you mean by an "empty URI". B) Are relative URI's allowed? I assume not, but I didn't notice any mention of this issue in the spec. C) typos and style inconsistencies: at the end of 5.2, the XML version number is in single quotes rather than in the double quotes that it appears in elsewhere. at the end of 5.3, I think you mean www.w3.org is bound to n1 and not to n2. The sentence "Note that namespace names are URIs, the governing RFCs for which contain rules for establishing lexical equivalence" is awkward and should be broken into two sentences to keep the clauses from running amok. D) It took me a while to figure out what the point was of the final example at the end of 5.3; an additional comment to the effect of "Note again namespace defaulting applies only to attributes and not to elements" would have been helpful. E) The acknowledgements and references sections could be made broader. In particular, the XML Working Group members should be mentioned by name if they participated in developing this, rather than just acknowledged as a group. No major problems that I could see. Keep up the good work! -Rolf -- | Rolf Nelson (rolf@w3.org), Project Manager, W3C at MIT | "Try to learn something about everything | and everything about something." --Huxley
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 1998 18:00:36 UTC