At 18:49 06/03/17, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Martin Duerst wrote:
When looking with a microscope, you will find some little
differences, because xs:anyURI was described before the IRI
spec (RFC 3987) was approved. These differences are:
1) xs:aryURI also allows spaces and a few other ASCII
(Discussion started on atom-syntax, but this is a more general RELAX
NG issue, so cross-posting to rng-users.)
On Mar 19, 2006, at 09:33, Martin Duerst wrote:
At 18:49 06/03/17, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Martin Duerst wrote:
When looking with a microscope, you will find some little
Henri Sivonen scripsit:
Is it really the best practice to use xsd:anyURI and sweep the
discrepancies under the rug in the hope that future definitions of
xsd:anyURI change the meaning of the schema later? Can xsd:anyURI be
augmented with a regexp pattern to restrict spaces and a few
I would recommend against using xsd:anyURI for IRIs. A URI is much more
restrictive than an IRI, and one of the easiest things for a schema
validator to check about an xsd:anyURI is that it only contains
URI-legal ASCII characters. I think a new type is necessary if you do
want to allow IRIs
* Elliotte Harold wrote:
I would recommend against using xsd:anyURI for IRIs. A URI is much more
restrictive than an IRI, and one of the easiest things for a schema
validator to check about an xsd:anyURI is that it only contains
URI-legal ASCII characters. I think a new type is necessary if
