Jeni Tennison wrote:
On 25 Sep 2009, at 12:35, Julian Reschke wrote:
Clarifying... this is *really* academic, right? Or are you expecting
people to actually use things which are in the "xml" or "xmlns"
namespaces?
Yes, this is *really* academic! I think the spec could easily be
changed without affecting any authors.
I concur. However, I also agree with Philip that making changes like
this at this time, even via errata, would be a conformance requirement
change, and that would be bad from a W3C process perspective. Philip is
also correct that indicating these prefixes are pre-declared would
pierce the carefully constructed veil between RDFa and Namespaces in
XML. I don't want to do that, really. I would much rather just require
that people who want to use xml: as a prefix declare that prefix. It's
such an edge case, it won't effect any of our real constituents.
Another approach would be to put in the errata that we recognize that
the current restriction makes it impossible to create an XSLT-based
implementation that conforms to this one edge case, encourage authors to
avoid that edge case, and indicate that in a future version we intend to
expand the rules so that an XSLT-based implementation is possible (by
expressly permitting the pre-definition of the 'xml' prefix mapping).
If it sounds like I am waffling on this, it's because I am. I don't
have a personal stake in this, I just know it is an issue some people
care about and I hoped that by putting out a specific errata proposal it
would spur discussion. Let's get to consensus on the best way forward
so we can close this one out. There are, of course, more!
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: sh...@aptest.com
