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

XInclude PR and needed XInclude edits

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:27:44 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0385A12F@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "XML Core WG" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We completed a successful PR request telcon,
meaning that we have been approved to go to PR,
but we have cleanup to do on the spec.

[Henry, Norm, I need your help on some wording of a
couple notes we're supposed to add--see below.]

The rest of this message is my attempt to outline
changes we need to make to the spec before we can
publish it.  We are hoping to publish next Thursday
(Sep 30), and that means I'd need the edited XML, HTML, 
and diff-HTML preferably by COB Tuesday--Jonathan, 
let us know if this is feasible for you.

1.  Replace the IRI text with that suggested by Martin at:
and make correction noted at:

2.  Update the IRI reference in the biblio with:

3.  The "1999" date in the ref to the Infoset (in the biblio)
should be changed to "2004".

4.  Delete the non-normative ref to the XPointer CR (but leave
the one to the XPointer xpointer() Scheme).  It is obsolete,
and I didn't see any references to it.

5.  Change all occurrences of "XML 1.0" to just "XML"
throughout the document.  In the biblio, have the [XML]
reference expand to an entry for both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1
if possible (not sure if the xmlspec DTD allows this, but
see what can be done).

6.  We were told to add a note somewhere near the beginning 
that was supposed to be in response to the XML 1.0 versus
XML 1.1 versus the "one true infoset" issue, but I was booted
off the call at the key point and then not allowed back on
for several minutes, so I missed this.  The minutes record
the following suggested by Henry:

  we use xml throughout the spec. the spec is based on infoset, 
  the integrity of the infoset is based on the integrity of the 
  tools you're using

but I can't really understand it or what it has to do with 1.1
versus 1.0, so HENRY, please suggest actual wording for this
note we're supposed to add.

7.  We were told to:

  update the conformance section with  "xinclude provides extra
  features for xml, it will work for xml 1.0 or xml 1.1 and possible
  future versions"

but again, I'm not sure about this, so HENRY, NORM, please suggest
actual wording to fix the conformance section.

8.  I gather all references in the biblio are supposed to be to
dated versions (per the manual of style), so we need to do that.

Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 17:27:45 UTC

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