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

RE: Transition Request: PER Request for XML Base Second Edition

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:44:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302059C18F4@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

All the pubrules issues are what I'd expect, so it all
sounds good--thanks, Richard.

When I go to the XML, I get the review version; I guess
I was expecting it would be set up to give the "final"
version.  Is this just due to:
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="diffspec.xsl"?>

Shouldn't that be changed to refer to "xmlspec.xsl"?

Finally, was there a specific reason you added the
paragraph about "no implementation report" (e.g.,
did pubrules say something about it)?  If not, then
is there a reason to highlight this in the SOTD?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Monday, 2006 December 11 09:36
> To: Richard Tobin; Philippe Le Hegaret; Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Transition Request: PER Request for XML Base 
> Second Edition
> The versions at 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/Overview.html
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/Overview.xml
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/xmlbase-review.html
> are now almost ready to go I think.
> We don't yet have a link to a statement that no implementation report
> is required, presumably this will come up on the call.
> The patent paragraph annoys the pubrules checker, as expected.
> The link checker complains because it's not in the right place
> yet (the links don't work, and the same-document references are
> to a member-only document).
> -- Richard
Received on Monday, 11 December 2006 15:44:50 UTC

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