prefix mapping the responsibility of the host language. Thanks for your
> Hello,
>
> I have a problem with a MUST requirement. I realize the document is in
> CR, but I only just noticed it when thinking about adding CURIE
> support to OWL/XML:
>
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization>
> In particular:
>
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-curie-20090116/#s_syntax>
> """When CURIES are used in an XML-based host language, and that host
> language supports XML Namespaces, prefix values MUST be able to be
> defined using the 'xmlns:' syntax specified in [XMLNAMES]. Such host
> languages MAY also provide additional prefix mapping definition
> mechanisms."""
>
> This is unnecessarily restrictive. I want to add a prefix declaration
> mechanism and I want to keep namespace declarations out of the
> picture. I see no reason for this not to be possible, other than
> consistency with other XML formats. But I don't *want* that
> consistency. I want OWL/XML processors not to have to deal with two
> dereferencing mechanisms for CURIEs and I want OWL/XML to use
> namespaces *solely* for element and attribute names (to avoid
> confusing syntax and content).
>
> The likely alternative is not to have CURIEs at all. Which seems silly.
>
> Also, it's just a bit otiose. What XML language *doesn't* ,in some
> sense, support XML Namespaces? What if I have a non-namespaced format
> which has an open content model? If I put some SVG in there do I
> suddenly have to support namespace prefix lookups?
>
> One great advantage of CURIEs is, finally, a possibility of
> *divorcing* XML Namespaces and abbreviating URIs. Yet the spec
> *requires* confusing them. Please change this.
>
> I'm fine with a SHOULD, though I think that's wrong.
>
> I would think my organization would oppose going to PR without this
> change.
>
> I apologize for not noting this point sooner.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>
