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 <conno...@w3.org
<mailto:conno...@w3.org>> 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: sh...@aptest.com
