W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > February 2008

[Bug 5424] 4. SML References awkward wording

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:57:55 +0000
CC:
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JPTMJ-0003T7-5A@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5424





------- Comment #3 from johnarwe@us.ibm.com  2008-02-14 01:57 -------
1-5 ok

6a: the intent is to change it from text that "strongly suggests" what we want
to happen to RFC2119-compliant text that (to me) has the same meaning just more
clearly stated in a way a reader is less likely to miss.  What alternate
interpretation leads you to declare the new text "wrong"?  Maybe I'm missing
some way of mis-reading what I intend...that is why we review it, so no harm no
foul.

6b: this simply intended to combine two sequential if-then sentences that share
a common antecedent (if condition).

6a/6b: current editor's copy has this first paragraph in 4.2.5
An null SML reference is an explicit declaration of intent by the document
author that the SML reference itself does not exist, and a processing directive
(not a hint) to processors not to attempt to recognize any reference schemes in
it. If an SML reference is recognized as null, then processors MUST NOT attempt
to resolve it.

6a/6b: replacement text, incorporating both changes above
An null SML reference is an explicit declaration of intent by the document
author that the SML reference itself does not exist.  If an SML reference is
recognized as null, processors MUST NOT attempt to recognize any reference
schemes in it and MUST NOT attempt to resolve it.

(note: the first sentence is the subject of another in-flight bug, I restricted
my changes to those described in this bug only) ... hope that helps

7: +1 for proposal in comment #2.  MUCH cleaner/clearer than my incremental
chg.
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 01:58:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:09 UTC