W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > March 2009

[Bug 5561] SML should define a Simple XLink Reference Scheme

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:41:48 +0000
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1LlOs0-0003KZ-Q1@wiggum.w3.org>

Kirk Wilson <kirk.wilson@ca.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |kirk.wilson@ca.com

--- Comment #14 from Kirk Wilson <kirk.wilson@ca.com>  2009-03-22 14:41:48 ---
The following are my comments - referencing the original comments.

LKC1: Title should follow the style SML xxx Reference Style to be consistent
with the SML spec.

LKC7: The full title of section 2 should be restored.  Simply entitling the
section "Definition" and depending on the context for what the definition is of
seems to be an inconvience to the reader.

LKC8: I would vote against restructing section 2.  Since it is relatively
simple to define an SML XLink reference scheme (as opposed, e.g., to an
EPR-based SML reference scheme), we should keep the structure as close as
possible to that of the SML reference scheme definition.

LKC14: The "active voice" modification is actually not "active voice", but an
imperative: "Obtain a document. . ".  This seems to be taking a step into the
"algorithmic" form of expressing the defintion, which the WG has rejected--with
VERY good reasons (IMHO).

I agree with John that LKC19 (D has no value) is not irrelevant and LKC22 is
correct as it stands ("or" vs. "and").  Good catch on the sml:targetType.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 14:56:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:15 UTC