W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > December 2006

RE: DRAFT#1 Transition Request: PER Request for XML Base Second Edition

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:13:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30205957350@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, 2006 December 07 12:01
> To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DRAFT#1 Transition Request: PER Request for XML 
> Base Second Edition
> 
> > Here is my first draft PER requestion for XML Base Second Edition.
> 
> I have updated the version at
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/Overview.html
> 
> to be closer to publication-ready.  I removed the "what we plan to do"
> section and added a "changes since the first edition" appendix.

Thanks, Richard.

> 
> > Also note the URLs of things I used in
> > this draft as marked by ***.  The file at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/Overview.html
> > should be the non-diff-markup one, and the diff-markup one
> > should be at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/xmlbase-review.html
> > or some such.
> 
> I used "Overview-review.html" but I can change that if appropriate.

The only useful semantic to the name "Overview" is that the
W3C server serves it "automatically" if you reference the
directory--otherwise, it's a pretty informationless name.  
There is no useful semantic to Overview-review, so our past
practice has usually been to name the review version by
appending -review.html to the basename of the XML file as 
we've done with:

XInclude:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xinclude-20061115/REC-xinclude-20061115-re
view.html
XML 1.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/REC-xml-20060816-review.html
XML 1.1:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/REC-xml11-20060816-review.h
tml

> 
> >  Also take note of the text I suggest for the
> > Status section below, though modify as you see fit and/or
> > as dictated by pubrules.
> 
> I started on it before reading your mail, so I will reconsider it
> tomorrow.
> 
> > Note that I opted to continue
> > to refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/06/xmlbase-errata for
> > ongoing XML Base errata.
> 
> I'm not sure why we would have a link to errata in a PER.  Obviously
> we will need one in the Edited Recommendation but no-one should be
> attempting to apply new errata to a PER.

If you don't get pubrules errors, then that's fine, but
I saw pointers to errata documents in other PERs we've
done, so I was guessing it might be required by pubrules.

> 
> > Finally, I didn't mention anything about known implementations
> > or test suites, as I wasn't sure what to say here.  Ideas welcome.
> 
> It's hard to test XML Base, since there are no standard APIs for it
> that I know of.  And applications that use XML Base won't resolve
> the escaped / unescaped issue.  You could see what XSLT2's function
> returns, but that is a rather limited test.

Right, I'm find with not saying anything here as long as
we don't run into pubrules issues.  I sort of remember
having pubrules complain if you don't have a pointer to
an Implementation Report, and if so, I'm not sure what to
do for XML Base.

paul
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 18:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:37 UTC