Re: Datatype for IRIs in RELAX NG
On Mar 21, 2006, at 11:29, Julian Reschke wrote: maybe it's time that *some* specification adds new datatypes that do *exactly* what RFC3986 and RFC3987 ask for :-) I have a draft spec at http://hsivonen.iki.fi/html5-datatypes/ A snapshot of the reference implementation (which currently lacks the 'language' datatype) is available for testing as part of my validation service: http://hsivonen.iki.fi/validator/ The reference implementation just wraps the IRI library from Jena (pulled from CVS; the new version does not ship in a Jena release, yet). Disclaimer: The datatype library has undergone *very* little testing. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Re: Datatype for IRIs in RELAX NG
At 02:08 06/03/20, 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. This is indeed one of the easiest things, but it would be TOTALLY wrong. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/datatypes.html#anyURI says, among else: The mapping from anyURI values to URIs is as defined by the URI reference escaping procedure defined in Section 5.4 Locator Attribute of [XML Linking Language] (see also Section 8 Character Encoding in URI References of [Character Model]). This means that a wide range of internationalized resource identifiers can be specified when an anyURI is called for, and still be understood as URIs per [RFC 2396], as amended by [RFC 2732], where appropriate to identify resources. If there is confusion in other venues about this issue, please help to make sure it gets fixed. Regards,Martin.
Re: Datatype for IRIs in RELAX NG
Martin Duerst wrote: At 02:08 06/03/20, 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. This is indeed one of the easiest things, but it would be TOTALLY wrong. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/datatypes.html#anyURI says, among else: The mapping from anyURI values to URIs is as defined by the URI reference escaping procedure defined in Section 5.4 Locator Attribute of [XML Linking Language] (see also Section 8 Character Encoding in URI References of [Character Model]). This means that a wide range of internationalized resource identifiers can be specified when an anyURI is called for, and still be understood as URIs per [RFC 2396], as amended by [RFC 2732], where appropriate to identify resources. If there is confusion in other venues about this issue, please help to make sure it gets fixed. Well, maybe it's time that *some* specification adds new datatypes that do *exactly* what RFC3986 and RFC3987 ask for :-) Best regards, Julian
Re: Datatype for IRIs in RELAX NG
* Martin Duerst wrote: At 02:30 06/03/20, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: In Schema 1.1 it is not possible for a xsd:string to be no xsd:anyURI. Can you explain? It seems you are saying that all xsd:strings are also xsd:anyURIs, but that seems going a bit too far. Yes, that's exactly what the XML Schema 1.1 Last Call Working Draft implies as far as I can tell. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Datatype for IRIs in RELAX NG (was: Re: Atom syndication schema)
(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 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 characters that are not allowed in URIs nor in IRIs (but the IRI spec has an escape hatch for such cases). 2) The IRI spec contains many more details than the xs:anyURI description, in particular also some requirements re. normalization. However, some of the requirements in this area of the IRI spec may be lowered or removed in the future because we have received feedback from implementers that there are difficulties to implement these. I agree with Martin that it would be incorrect to use xsd:anyURI here. Sorry, but I never said that it would be incorrect to use xsd:anyURI. I personally think that it should be okay to use xsd:anyURI. The differences are microscopic, and they should become even smaller, or hopefully go away completely, over time. I need datatypes for IRIs in general (relative, absolute or just fragment identifiers) and for absolute IRIs (possibly with a fragment id) in a RELAX NG schema. 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 other ASCII characters in such a way that the resulting datatype restriction matches the definition of IRI? Has anyone implemented a strictly correct IRI datatype in a Java datatype library (for Jing and MSV)? -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Re: [rng-users] Datatype for IRIs in RELAX NG (was: Re: Atom syndication schema)
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 other ASCII characters in such a way that the resulting datatype restriction matches the definition of IRI? Has anyone implemented a strictly correct IRI datatype in a Java datatype library (for Jing and MSV)? It's certainly possible to construct a regular expression, a long and complex one, that will match all IRIs and only IRIs (note that IRI by itself means absolute IRI with or without fragment identifier). The question is whether it's really worth doing so. If you feel you need it, by all means go ahead. -- LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan thou hast given away: [EMAIL PROTECTED] That thou wast born with. http://www.ap.org
Re: Datatype for IRIs in RELAX NG
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 instead of simple URIs. I suspect you could do it with a regular expression but the syntax would be really hairy. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Re: Datatype for IRIs in RELAX NG
* 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 you do want to allow IRIs instead of simple URIs. I suspect you could do it with a regular expression but the syntax would be really hairy. In Schema 1.1 it is not possible for a xsd:string to be no xsd:anyURI. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
