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

RE: XLink 1.1 and SMIL animation

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:07:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30202178032@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Tuesday, 2006 January 24 10:56
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XLink 1.1 and SMIL animation
> 
> / "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> was heard to say:
> | I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but how
> | does 1.1 differ from 1.0 in this situation?
> 
> I don't think it does. If you think a reply along these lines will
> satisfy the commenter and get us to CR this Friday, please give it a
> try :-)

I will do so if I can find his comment.  Can you
point me to it?

Whether it satisfies the commentor or not, I recommend 
we treat this comment as a PE on XLink 1.0,
meaning you shouldn't even consider this as a comment
on the XLink 1.1 LC in your DoC.

paul
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 17:10:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT