RE: [w3c sml][4807] Look at sections in section 5 and see if we can make them more clear

I vote for changing target to -- so that we can have a chance to 
understand and then review the issue addressed by 4807.
Without this extra information I can't agree to remove that portion of the 
spec since I don't know what's wrong with it in the first place.


Thank you,
Valentina Popescu
IBM Toronto Labs
Phone:  (905)413-2412         (tie-line  969)
Fax: (905) 413-4850




Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
09/14/2007 02:01 PM

To
Pratul Dublish <Pratul.Dublish@microsoft.com>, Valentina 
Popescu/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>, 
"public-sml-request@w3.org" <public-sml-request@w3.org>
cc
Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>
Subject
RE: [w3c sml][4807] Look at sections in section 5 and see if we can   make 
 them more clear






I marked the bug as ?needsAgreement? as suggested. I also added my 
proposal to the bug.
 
Since we decided, in the last conf call, to attempt to reach consensus 
over email, I would like to do just that. My proposal is copied below for 
quick reference.
 
I propose that we should remove this section entirely rather than spending 
time fixing/clarifying it. There are a couple of reasons: 
1.    Support for structured xml output is optional. It will be more 
productive to spend our time on core (non-optional) SML issues. If we have 
lot of time left after fixing all core issues, we can discuss whether to 
bring this back. 
2.    It is strange that the SML spec even attempts to define this. This 
should either be implementation dependent or should be the responsibility 
of the schematron spec to define. 
 
Please let me know if you disagree. If we can reach consensus by Monday, I 
can make the changes in time for the second draft. If we don?t reach 
consensus soon, I will change the target milestone to ??? as suggested by 
Pratul.
 
 
From: Pratul Dublish 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:31 AM
To: Valentina Popescu; Kumar Pandit
Cc: Kumar Pandit; public-sml@w3.org; public-sml-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c sml][4807] Look at sections in section 5 and see if we 
can make them more clear
 
I agree with Valentina ? this should be moved back to ?needsAgreement? and 
the milestone field cleared, so that we can triage it for a future 
milestone.  We have more important issues to close that are critical for 
the 2nd draft. 
 
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of Valentina Popescu
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 7:51 AM
To: Kumar Pandit
Cc: Kumar Pandit; public-sml@w3.org; public-sml-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: [w3c sml][4807] Look at sections in section 5 and see if we 
can make them more clear
 

One thing that strikes me while reading the defect is that there is not 
enough description to understand what the problem is. I vaguely recall 
some discussions during the June f2f meeting around the usage of the SML 
error output on attributes such as the applicationURI, but none of these 
things are recorded here so I can?t guarantee that this is what this 
defect refers to. 

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4807 

With the information I have at this time, my view on this defect is that 
it is not ready for editorial updates. I propose to move it back to 
needsAgreement and have somebody write down the issues so that we can 
investigate them. 

Thank you,
Valentina Popescu
IBM Toronto Labs
Phone:  (905)413-2412         (tie-line  969)
Fax: (905) 413-4850


Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org 
09/13/2007 10:23 PM 


To
"public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org> 
cc
Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com> 
Subject
[w3c sml][4807] Look at sections in section 5 and see if we can  make them 
more clear
 








The section 5 in the title has now become section 6 : ?Structured XML 
Output from Schematron Rules?. 
  
I propose that we should remove this section entirely rather than spending 
time fixing/clarifying it. There are a couple of reasons: 
1.       Support for structured xml output is optional. It will be more 
productive to spend our time on core (non-optional) SML issues. If we have 
lot of time left after fixing all core issues, we can discuss whether to 
bring this back. 
2.       It is strange that the SML spec even attempts to define this. 
This should either be implementation dependent or should be the 
responsibility of the schematron spec to define. 
  
Please let me know if you disagree.