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 12:24:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302059C1A27@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Monday, 2006 December 11 10:31
> To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Transition Request: PER Request for XML Base 
> Second Edition
> > 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"?
> No, it doesn't work to put diffspec documents through xmlspec.
> You have to put them through diffspec with the parameter
> show.diff.markup set to 0.  (Right Norm?)

Well, whatever, I think it's a bit more appropriate for the
XML to display as the final--rather than the review--version,
though I don't feel strongly about it for the PR review.

> > 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?
> The pubrules checker says there has to either be a link to the
> implementation report or a statement that the Director's decision did
> not involve such a report.

OK, I thought there might be something like that.

Received on Monday, 11 December 2006 17:24:32 UTC

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