W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > July 2007

RE: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission

From: Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:39:39 -0700
Message-ID: <6290E21D21453A4DAD8B23AC9D62F33105521543@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Lynn, James (HP Software)" <james.lynn@hp.com>, Pratul Dublish <pratul.dublish@microsoft.com>, "Wilson, Kirk D" <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>, <public-sml@w3.org>
The correct status text is already there in the source XML file. I will
generate the html file with the correct text and check it in.

 

 

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lynn, James (HP Software)
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:25 AM
To: Pratul Dublish; Wilson, Kirk D; public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission

 

I have made the changes to sections 2.2 and 3.2.2. The change to the
status was made by Kumar according to the email that John sent out last
week, but is not showing up in the build. I have not been able to figure
out why. We will get it fixed before submitting.

 

J

 

________________________________

From: Pratul Dublish [mailto:Pratul.Dublish@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 6:10 PM
To: Wilson, Kirk D; Lynn, James (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission

I agree with Kirk - the status of both specs should be updated, "IT"
should be removed from the definition of Model, and an "example under
construction" note should be inserted in Section 3.2.2 of SML spec

 

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Wilson, Kirk D
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:32 AM
To: Lynn, James (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission

 

I assume July is meant rather than Aug.  Here are a couple of comments
that I would urge being fixed for FPWD.

 

Didn't we decide to include the Status of this Document sections as
drafted in issue 4877?  This should replace the Editors' Copy Status
statement.  (This comment pertains to both documents.)

 

SML document:

Section 2.2: In conformity with the decision to remove "IT" from the
abstract, it should also be removed from the definition of Model.

 

Section 3.2.2  EPR Scheme.  I don't know which is worse: having an
example that fails to illustrate what the text says it illustrates or
having an example that illustrates its point in an unacceptable way
(i.e., by using ReferenceParameters).  I actually think the former is
worse in this case, which is the current state of the text.  I would
recommend inserting an Editors' Note before the example to the effect
that the example is still "under construction."  

 

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.
Research Staff Member

CA Labs

603 823-7146

 

________________________________

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lynn, James (HP Software)
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 8:55 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission

 

Hello all, 

The editors have completed the First Public Working Draft for both the
SML and SML-IF specs and intend to notify the webmaster to publish it on
Aug 31; it will take several days from then for it to appear on the W3
site. Please review and notify us of any blocking issues by the end of
Aug 30. The URI for the editors' drafts are listed at the top of the
SMLWG page: http://www.w3.org/XML/SML/ <http://www.w3.org/XML/SML/> 

Regards on behalf of the SML Editors, 

James Lynn, HP 
Bhalchandra Pandit, Microsoft Corporation 
Valentina Popescu, IBM Corporation 
Virginia Smith, HP 
Bassam Tabbara , Microsoft Corporation 
Marvin Waschke, CA 
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 05:07:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:04 UTC