W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > September 2004

RE: Editorial glitches in XInclude PR

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:03:56 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03637C9F@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Fine with me, but I don't see these changes when I go to
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/07/PR-xinclude/

You should make these changes in all of:
 Overview.html
 PR-xinclude-20040908.xml
 PR-xinclude-20040908-diff.html
since that's what my PR request references.

Or, if you want to put up files dated 20040910, that's fine
too, but let me know so I can change the PR request and be 
sure to start with that PR-xinclude-20040908.xml since I made 
changes to it.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Friday, 2004 September 10 15:45
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Editorial glitches in XInclude PR
> 
> Elliotte pointed out a couple of problems in our PR.  I have 
> fixed them
> both.
> 
> For the second, I added another sentence to the defn of 
> acquired infoset
> in 4.2:
> 
> "[Definition: xi:include elements in this infoset are recursively
> processed to create the acquired infoset. For an intra-document
> reference (via xpointer attribute) the source infoset is used as the
> acquired infoset.]"
> 
> This bakes subresource identification into the process for determining
> which items are included, rather than relying on section 4.2.5 and the
> implications there to enforce this constraint.  With this definition,
> the text in 4.2.5 can be softened a little:
> 
> "Intra-document references within xi:include elements must be resolved
> against the source infoset. The effect of this is that the order in
> which xi:include elements are processed does not affect the result." 
> 
> I've replaced "must be" with "are", since the gist is now 
> baked into the
> definition and the "must" doesn't add anything.
> 
> Happy to back these out of they're controversial, but they seemed
> editorial in nature to me.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 21:04:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:31 GMT