Lists Home |
Date Index |
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 3:16 AM
> To: Elliotte Rusty Harold; email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Illegal Characters in Namespace URIs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Sun 6/16/2002 2:44 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Illegal Characters in Namespace URIs
> >Yes, I read all that. However, document conformance is defined by
> >Section 6 which states:
> >In XML documents which conform to this specification, element types
> >and attribute names must match the production for QName and must
> >satisfy the "Namespace Constraints".
> >That's it. The next couple of paragraphs elaborate this, but do not
> >add any further constraints. Since the URI reference is not part of
> >the BNF grammar or a namespace constraint, it seems possible to claim
> >conformance with non-URI values.
> I looked at the errata for the Names in XML REC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata and couldn't find
> anywhere this was clarified so I have to agree with you that the
> REC seems to imply that XML documents containing non-URI values
> as values for namespace names are conformant. I assume this is
> the only reason WebDAV can get away with its non-URI namespace
> name and still claim conformance.
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/relax-ng/200111/msg00032.html
Not so. The reason WebDAV "gets away" with the badly chosen namespace name is the fact that RFC2396+ is going to allow empty scheme-specific parts, making "just the scheme name" a valid URI. At least that's my understanding of the outcome of the discussion.