W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > October 2008

Re: [Fwd: W3C TAG Response to CURIE Last Call]

From: Alessio Cartocci <a.cartocci@webprofession.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:02:12 +0200
Message-ID: <263f692a0810080602s3e94f763o2a1919c6817e1d1b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roland Merrick" <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, "XHTML WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, public-xhtml2-request@w3.org

I agree, too.

Have a nice day.
Alessio

---
Alessio Cartocci
International Webmasters Association / The HTML Writers Guild
http://www.iwanet.org


2008/10/7 Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>:
>
> Greetings, I agree with Shane that the comments all look reasonable and that
> we should accept the proposed changes. We can then get back on track to move
> to CR asap allowing the specs that depend on CURIE to start moving again.
>
> Regards, Roland
>
>
>
> From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
> To: XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
> Date: 07/10/2008 14:20
> Subject: [Fwd: W3C TAG Response to CURIE Last Call]
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> The TAG has sent is their comments. I have review them, and basically I
> think we should just do what they ask.  None of it is unreasonable.  The
> only place there is a disconnect is about the syntax for CURIE and the
> corresponding XSD.  They are correct that the XSD is wrong in our spec -
> it does not permit all variations.  Their suggestion was to change the
> eBNF, but in fact the eBNF is fine.  We just need to fix the XSD.
>
> Anyway, let's discuss tomorrow but I think it is fine.
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 13:02:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:50 GMT