W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > May 2005

(unknown charset) RE: QA Framework comment [was: Minutes for XML Core WG tel

From: (unknown c <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:03:28 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C030482835C@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: (unknown charset) "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, Dominique Hazael-Mas
Cc: (unknown charset) "public-xml-core-wg" <public-x

> From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:daniel@veillard.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, 12 May, 2005 15:52
> 
> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:49:39PM -0400, Paul Grosso wrote:
> > 
> > At [1], I read:
> > 
> >   Clearly identify the class of products (i.e., type of
> >   products or services) upon which the requirements are imposed.
> > 
> > and I ask myself whether I'd be able to do that for, say,
> > the xml:id spec in such a way that would allow xml:id to
> > go to PR, and I can't.  I either don't understand what's
> > wanted and/or I can't figure out how to identify upon what
> > products xml:id is imposing what requirements.
> 
> The document we are supposed to comply with is just a Working Draft.
> 
> Since when the dependancy on a Working Draft can be imposed to a
> specification finishing CR and going into PR at the last moment ? 
> Process wise this is not understandable.

Let's not get into a process rat hole over a misunderstanding 
of my intentions.

I didn't mean to imply literally that the xml:id PR might
get held up due to this issue.

I'm just using examples from our current set of specs as a
thought experiment to see how one might deal with this.

If we can't figure out how to comply with this QA requirement,
then someday down the road, it could hold up one of our specs.

paul
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 21:03:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:32 GMT