This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Mar/0002.html I'm getting less and less comfortable with the way this spec. implicitly overrides the RFC-3986-mandated semantics of URIs in various ways, when indeed doing so actually diminishes rather than enhances its functionality. Please think again about this. I note the spec. doesn't even _reference_ 3986, despite referering to 'URI' in a BNF production in a way which I _assume_ is meant to pick up the same-named production from 3986. Or the IRI production from 3987. This should be made clear and explicit.
resolution (3/27 conf call): [1] The definition of the SML URI scheme is based on xs:anyURI as defined by XML schema 1.0 specification (which depends on RFC 2396 & RFC 2732). This is why we do not specifically refer to RFC 3986 in the definition of SML URI scheme. [2] The SML WG believes that the specification does not override any RFC 3986 mandated URI semantics. Can you please clarify what part of the specification overrides the RFC ? I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. a. Please review the current LC text and let us know if you agree with #1 b. Please provide clarification on #2 Please indicate your response to (a) and (b) by adding a comment to the issue record. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
resolution (conf call on 4/17/2008): Resolve as 'works-for-me' and remove the 'decided' keyword because the 2 week response period has elapsed (see comment# 1).
"Can you please clarify what part of the specification overrides the RFC?" 1) You don't allow fragids (see bug 5543); 2) You ignore the media type and attempt to treat everything as XML. For example, if I have a link to http://www.example.org/example.xml in a document in a model, and when you do model checking the server returns it as text/plain, you really aren't allowed to ignore that and treat it as XML anyway.
Hmmm, I guess my (2) in comment 3 is addressed by the pending resolution of bug 5523. . .
The WG reviewed Comments 3 and 4 and believes that no change is needed since SML does support fragids using smlxpath1() scheme
resolution (5/15 conf call): The SML WG believes that comment# 5 addresses this issue fully. I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. Please review the comment text and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
So, we end up with two remaining points here, possibly also addressed elsewhere. Wrt the media type issue, I am happy that the current state of the text clarifies that this is effectively a coherence check on SML URI Reference scheme references. Wrt the fragid issue, the thing I really care about is barenames, I'll accede to closing this issue (5545) and make a final comment about this concern under 5543.