[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-3440) ODF 1.2 CD05 Part 1Needs anyIRI datatype

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3440?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=23003#action_23003 ] 

Michael Brauer commented on OFFICE-3440:
----------------------------------------

Dennis: Regarding the first of you last three comments:
- "anyURI" in the ODF specification is just the name of define. We can give that define an arbitrary name, and we could use the name "anyIRI" for a define even if the content of that define is something different than an <date type="anyURI"/>. 
- The relation to XSD 1.1 is that 
-- the W3C has updated the anyURI definition to be based on RFC3987, that
-- it anyway has decided to not rename the datatype to "anyIRI", and 
-- that it tells us that "Because it is impractical for processors to check that a value is a context-appropriate URI reference, neither the syntactic constraints defined by the definitions of individual schemes nor the generic syntactic constraints defined by [RFC 3987] and [RFC 3986] and their successors are part of this datatype as defined here. "
That XSD 1.1 is not yet a standard does not matter. What matters is the opinion of those who write the XSD 1.1 specification, and if they decided to not restrict the lexical space of anyURI, I take that very serious.
- A question: If the XSD 1.1 specification would already be a recommendation and if we would normatively reference that, would you anyway propose to add an "anyIRI" datatype, or would you use the datatype that XSD 1.1 defines for IRIs?
- If your proposal would not cause any harm, I would certainly not discuss this as long with you as I do know. But what counts is the opinion of the TC itself (and only the TC). So, if you would like to have a ballot for you proposal, we of course can have that.

Regarding your 2nd comment: yes, there are values in the [xmlschema-2] (and XSD 1.1) anyURI lexical space that are not valid IRIs and are consequently not valid URIs either. But this intentionally the case. See the note that I have copied above. But I think this is the key question in this discussion:

If the W3C considers it to be impractical for processors to check the constrains of RFC3987, what makes you so certain that ODF consumers anyway could do so. That is the point I actually do not understand?

Compared to this, the question why we should rename our datatypes rather than using the established names is a minor one.


> ODF 1.2 CD05 Part 1 Needs anyIRI datatype
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OFFICE-3440
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3440
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: Needs Discussion, Part 1 (Schema), Schema and Datatypes
>    Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 CD 05
>            Reporter: Dennis Hamilton
>            Assignee: Dennis Hamilton
>             Fix For: ODF 1.2 CD 06
>
>
> The rules for IRI references are slightly different than the rules for anyURI.  In particular, anyURI accepts ASCII characters that are excluded from IRI references by [RFC3987].
> Rather than qualify the use of anyURI to be specific to IRIs every place that anyURI is used in the current schema, it is recommended that this be handled in one place by introducing an anyIRI datatype that is  derivative of anyURI with an additional pattern constraint that eliminates the ASCII-corresponding characters that are excluded from IRI references in [RFC3987].

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira