DR 09-0321 ? OPC: Relationships Markup

[Chris Rae]

Given that part names are not something that's ever presented to application users, I would argue that using URIs will make implementation easier, allow IS 29500 files to be parsed by a wider range of existing applications  and save disk space (although in the overall scheme of things the last one doesn't matter much). Given that IS 29500:1 doesn't support IRIs here, I think it's a large change that breaks backward-compatibility for only a minor syntactic benefit.

Let's discuss it on the next call.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp] 
Sent: 12 August 2010 21:09
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: DR 09-0321 ? OPC: Relationships Markup

> http://cid-c8ba0861dc5e4adc.office.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documen
> ts/2009/DR-09-0321.docx
> 
> This DR covers use of the vague wording 迭elationship Type is defined 
>in the same way that namespaces are defined for XML namespaces・ I think 
>this can be remedied by the attached changes to the paragraph. I do 
>like retaining the reference to XML namespaces, just because I think it 
>gives a handy pointer to implementers.

Oops, I should have asked.  Why URIs rather than IRIs?  Why should we disallow non-ASCII characters?

Unfortunately, XML namespace names are not URIs but IRIs.  Xerces does not allow IRIs as namespace names, while MS implementations have always allowed IRIs as namespace names.  Here shouldn't we allow non-ASCII characters?


Cheers,
Makoto