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 <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
