old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

Dan Connolly
The production
  prefix      :=   NCName

in the curie syntax section
  http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curies

goes to the Jan 1999 spec
  http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#NT-NCName

Is that by design? It would seem so, as the references
section is quite explicit:

[XMLNS]
        "Namespaces in XML", W3C Recommendation, T. Bray et al., eds.,
        14 January 1999.

Let's see...

The status of the 26 November 2008 edition of the XML spec says
"erratum [E09] relaxes the restrictions on element and attribute names"
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/ 
        http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/

Looks like RDFa went to REC in Oct 2008, just before then.

Ugh.
 
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

Mark Birbeck-4
Hi Dan,

Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at.

Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using
'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec?

If so, I don't see how it could, since 'prefix' needs to be the
'non-colon' version of 'Name', i.e., 'NCName'. This is only defined in
the XML Namespaces spec, as far as I know.

But that might not be what you mean...have I missed what you're driving at?

:)

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

[hidden email]

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)



On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The production
>  prefix      :=   NCName
>
> in the curie syntax section
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curies
>
> goes to the Jan 1999 spec
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#NT-NCName
>
> Is that by design? It would seem so, as the references
> section is quite explicit:
>
> [XMLNS]
>        "Namespaces in XML", W3C Recommendation, T. Bray et al., eds.,
>        14 January 1999.
>
> Let's see...
>
> The status of the 26 November 2008 edition of the XML spec says
> "erratum [E09] relaxes the restrictions on element and attribute names"
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/
>
> Looks like RDFa went to REC in Oct 2008, just before then.
>
> Ugh.
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>
>

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

Dan Connolly
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 00:06 +0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at.
>
> Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using
> 'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec?

No... I'm saying: the definition of Name in XML went
from, roughly, "only prescribe characters" to "everything except
disallowed characters". See http://cmsmcq.com/mib/?p=606
for some relevant commentary.

And NCName in the XML namespaces spec is defined in terms of
Name from XML. and CURIE is defined in terms of NCName from namespaces.

I tried to find a relevant test case in
  http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/
but I got lost in the maze.


XML and Namespaces got updated, but evidently that didn't
complete until just after RDFa was cooked.


> If so, I don't see how it could, since 'prefix' needs to be the
> 'non-colon' version of 'Name', i.e., 'NCName'. This is only defined in
> the XML Namespaces spec, as far as I know.
>
> But that might not be what you mean...have I missed what you're driving at?
>
> :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark


--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

Lin Clark
Hi Dan,

I noticed the same thing last week. Michael Hausenblas sent a message[1] to the RDF in XHTML mailing list. The conclusion was that this is an error.

Cheers,
Lin

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2010Jan/0062.html



On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 00:06 +0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at.
>
> Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using
> 'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec?

No... I'm saying: the definition of Name in XML went
from, roughly, "only prescribe characters" to "everything except
disallowed characters". See http://cmsmcq.com/mib/?p=606
for some relevant commentary.

And NCName in the XML namespaces spec is defined in terms of
Name from XML. and CURIE is defined in terms of NCName from namespaces.

I tried to find a relevant test case in
 http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/
but I got lost in the maze.


XML and Namespaces got updated, but evidently that didn't
complete until just after RDFa was cooked.


> If so, I don't see how it could, since 'prefix' needs to be the
> 'non-colon' version of 'Name', i.e., 'NCName'. This is only defined in
> the XML Namespaces spec, as far as I know.
>
> But that might not be what you mean...have I missed what you're driving at?
>
> :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark


--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E



Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

Philip Taylor-5
Lin Clark wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I noticed the same thing last week. Michael Hausenblas sent a message[1] to
> the RDF in XHTML mailing list. The conclusion was that this is an error.

Is it intentional that this seemingly differs from the earlier
conclusion about the same issue? I suggested the test case
http://github.com/msporny/rdfa-test-suite/blob/master/tests/0154.txt and
a response in
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Nov/0013.html>
said:

   "All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to refer to 4th Edition in
the coming weeks. We don't trust 5th Edition."

and
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Nov/0099.html>
said:

   "[...] TC 154 have been moved to "On Hold" status. [...] TC 154
contains an invalid XML character per XML 4th edition rules. We need to
decide how this will affect the graph that is generated and produce some
errata text to formalize the behavior."

indicating that the 4th edition rules are what's meant to be applied.

If the conclusion is that RDFa should be based on the latest version of
XMLNS, then TC 154 no longer contains an invalid character and so I
think it doesn't need to be on hold.

> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2010Jan/0062.html
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 00:06 +0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using
>>> 'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec?
>> No... I'm saying: the definition of Name in XML went
>> from, roughly, "only prescribe characters" to "everything except
>> disallowed characters". See http://cmsmcq.com/mib/?p=606
>> for some relevant commentary.
>>
>> And NCName in the XML namespaces spec is defined in terms of
>> Name from XML. and CURIE is defined in terms of NCName from namespaces.
>>
>> I tried to find a relevant test case in
>>  http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/
>> but I got lost in the maze.
>>
>>
>> XML and Namespaces got updated, but evidently that didn't
>> complete until just after RDFa was cooked.
>> [...]
>

--
Philip Taylor
[hidden email]

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

Shane McCarron
In reply to this post by Lin Clark
Hmm... I guess I need to look into this harder.  It is correct that we
do not want to go towatd XML Revision 5 because of its changes to legal
name characters.  The entire XHTML suite of specifications is setting on
Revision 4.  If the updated namespaces spec relies upon revision 5....  
I am not sure what the working group will want to do.

I will keep you all posted.

Lin Clark wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> I noticed the same thing last week. Michael Hausenblas sent a
> message[1] to the RDF in XHTML mailing list. The conclusion was that
> this is an error.
>
> Cheers,
> Lin
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2010Jan/0062.html
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 00:06 +0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
>     > Hi Dan,
>     >
>     > Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at.
>     >
>     > Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using
>     > 'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec?
>
>     No... I'm saying: the definition of Name in XML went
>     from, roughly, "only prescribe characters" to "everything except
>     disallowed characters". See http://cmsmcq.com/mib/?p=606
>     for some relevant commentary.
>
>     And NCName in the XML namespaces spec is defined in terms of
>     Name from XML. and CURIE is defined in terms of NCName from
>     namespaces.
>
>     I tried to find a relevant test case in
>      http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/
>     but I got lost in the maze.
>
>
>     XML and Namespaces got updated, but evidently that didn't
>     complete until just after RDFa was cooked.
>
>
>     > If so, I don't see how it could, since 'prefix' needs to be the
>     > 'non-colon' version of 'Name', i.e., 'NCName'. This is only
>     defined in
>     > the XML Namespaces spec, as far as I know.
>     >
>     > But that might not be what you mean...have I missed what you're
>     driving at?
>     >
>     > :)
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     >
>     > Mark
>
>
>     --
>     Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>     gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>
>

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]



Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

Shane McCarron
Okay - just to be clear.  The RDFa Syntax recommendation SHOULD have
referenced the Namespaces in XML Recommendation Second Edition -
published in 2006.  It was an error that it did not.  XMLNS2e references
the XML Recommendation Fourth Edition.  So that is brought in too.  
These recommendations do not change the scope of characters in NCNAME as
far as I know, but I will continue to check.

Shane McCarron wrote:

> Hmm... I guess I need to look into this harder.  It is correct that we
> do not want to go towatd XML Revision 5 because of its changes to
> legal name characters.  The entire XHTML suite of specifications is
> setting on Revision 4.  If the updated namespaces spec relies upon
> revision 5....  I am not sure what the working group will want to do.
>
> I will keep you all posted.
>
> Lin Clark wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I noticed the same thing last week. Michael Hausenblas sent a
>> message[1] to the RDF in XHTML mailing list. The conclusion was that
>> this is an error.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lin
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2010Jan/0062.html 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 00:06 +0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>     > Hi Dan,
>>     >
>>     > Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at.
>>     >
>>     > Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using
>>     > 'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec?
>>
>>     No... I'm saying: the definition of Name in XML went
>>     from, roughly, "only prescribe characters" to "everything except
>>     disallowed characters". See http://cmsmcq.com/mib/?p=606
>>     for some relevant commentary.
>>
>>     And NCName in the XML namespaces spec is defined in terms of
>>     Name from XML. and CURIE is defined in terms of NCName from
>>     namespaces.
>>
>>     I tried to find a relevant test case in
>>      http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/
>>     but I got lost in the maze.
>>
>>
>>     XML and Namespaces got updated, but evidently that didn't
>>     complete until just after RDFa was cooked.
>>
>>
>>     > If so, I don't see how it could, since 'prefix' needs to be the
>>     > 'non-colon' version of 'Name', i.e., 'NCName'. This is only
>>     defined in
>>     > the XML Namespaces spec, as far as I know.
>>     >
>>     > But that might not be what you mean...have I missed what you're
>>     driving at?
>>     >
>>     > :)
>>     >
>>     > Regards,
>>     >
>>     > Mark
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>>     gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]



Loading...