W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: [closed] Re: xml:id Last Call comment from i18n

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:19:11 -0000
To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: <public-xml-id@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "'Architecture Domain'" <w3t-arch@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050203141911.0D1074F413@homer.w3.org>

Hello Norm,

Thanks from me for fixing so quickly, too.  

The i18n WG has a meeting today and I expect we will formally confirm our
agreement, but from what I've seen from private responses, there is unlikely
to an objection to your fix. 

Someone will send an email as soon as we have formally discussed.

RI


============
Richard Ishida
W3C

contact info:
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 

W3C Internationalization:
http://www.w3.org/International/ 

Publication blog:
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: 03 February 2005 13:48
> To: Martin Duerst
> Cc: Richard Ishida; public-xml-id@w3.org; 
> public-i18n-core@w3.org; 'Architecture Domain'
> Subject: [closed] Re: xml:id Last Call comment from i18n
> 
> / Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> was heard to say:
> | Hello Norm,
> |
> | Many thanks for fixing this so quickly.
> 
> I am taking this comment as an indication that you are 
> satisfied with the resolution.
> 
> | This brought up a misunderstanding about XML Namespaces 1.1 
> on my side.
> | I was of the impression that XML Namespaces 1.1 was fixing some 
> | problems with XML Namespaces independently of XML 1.0/1.1, such as 
> | officially allowing IRIs in Namespace URIs, and so on.
> |
> | Looking at XML Namespaces 1.1, I discovered that it's 
> indeed very easy 
> | to get such an impression. One has to go to Section 7, 
> Conformance of 
> | Documents, to find this stated: "This specification applies 
> to XML 1.1 
> | documents.". (A careful observer may also get a hunch about 
> this from 
> | the examples in section 6.)
> |
> | If Namespaces in XML 1.1 ever gets updated, please make 
> sure that such 
> | fundamental dependencies are clearly called out at the very 
> start of 
> | the document (Abstract, Status, Intro,...). Assuming that 
> just because 
> | the numbers are the same, people will naturally understand 
> that these 
> | go together just doesn't work out in the industry we live in, where 
> | very often dependent products are numbered independently.
> 
> Richard has an outstanding action to produce a 2nd edition of 
> Namespaces in XML, I don't recall off the top of my head if 
> you're concerns are expected to be addressed in that update 
> or not, but I expect they are.
> At least, when that spec surfaces as a WD, that'd be the time 
> to make suggestions :-)
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> --
> Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun 
> Microsystems, Inc.
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
> prohibited.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 
> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 14:19:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:49 GMT