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

FW: Transition Request: PR Request for XInclude

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:52:48 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03859F22@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "XML Core WG" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 2004 September 21 07:46
To: Paul Grosso; steve@w3.org; Amy van der Hiel
Cc: timbl@w3.org; w3c-xml-cg; chairs@w3.org; webreq@w3.org;
w3t-comm@w3.org; w3t-qa@w3.org; Jonathan Marsh; ht@w3.org
Subject: RE: Transition Request: PR Request for XInclude

This is to take care of an action item I got from the I18N WG (Core TF).
The action item asks me to send this to the XML Core WG, but I think
it's better to send it here directly; please forward to the XML Core WG
as appropriate. [most of this is just confirming previous discussions]

The I18N WG (Core TF) had a look at the original mail in this thread:
and the issues mentioned there. With respect to issue xi-2:
    - We think that syntactic checking of URIs/IRIs isn't an i18n issue,
      and isn't, and shouldn't be, the job of the XInclude processor.
      This is similar to there being nothing, to our knowledge, about
      syntactic checking of system ids in XML.

    - It's very good to see IRIs in the spec
      http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-xinclude-20040413/#IRIs. We hope
      that the IRI spec well soon be approved and issues as an RFC.

   - The following has to be fixed:
      the Unicode plane 1-14 characters #x10000-#x1FFFD ...
      #xE000-#xEFFD -> #xE0000-#xEFFFD
      also, spaces and similar characters should be disallowed.

With respect to issue xi-12:
    - We support this (correct!) treatment of xml:lang;
      it's unacceptable to simply drop this information

Regards,    Martin.

At 13:19 04/09/15 -0400, Paul Grosso wrote:

> > From: Steve Bratt [mailto:steve@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2004 September 14 08:22
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Thanks for this.  As you have probably seen, there is a
> > thread with questions
> > regarding features at risk and IRIs (incl. dependencies, possible
> > inconsistencies, [you discussed the objection already
> > below]).  Could you please
> > respond to these?
>Executive summary
>1.  IRI's--we reference the IRI spec non-normatively and
>     include the necessary definitions in XInclude; we will
>     update the text in XInclude per Martin's recommendations.
>     See the following for details:
>2.  Implementation Report--we are preparing an augmented IR
>     with links to the implementations and more complete results.
>     As stated in the PR request, we have two implementations
>     of all required features and at least one for optional ones.
>     See the following for details:
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 13:53:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:33 UTC