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

RE: PER request timing

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:57:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302038B1D5B@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "Richard Tobin" <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>, <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Monday, 2006 June 05 09:42
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: Richard Tobin; Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM
> Subject: PER request timing
> 
> I think we can shade it a day, if you put the mail out today.
> 
> Are you planning to do so, or have you left already, or are we waiting
> on something else. . .

It was mostly my fault that I forgot to follow up on things, and
I failed to point out to Francois that I needed updates from him.

I just tried to make the following changes to the HTML for the XML PERs:

1.  changed mmdd to 0614 twice in both the review and regular
    versions of both 1.0 and 1.1.

2.  changed dd MMMM to 14 June.

3.  change dd MMMM to 31 July

4.  Deleted the "available in non-normative..." para since I wasn't
    going to be able to edit the XML and figure out all the URLs.

5.  Posted them to the URLs I had in my last draft transition request.

I highly suspect I've missed something or screwed something up, so
I'm hoping we'll be able to fix whatever in the interim.

For NS 1.0, both the transition req and the WD point to
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/xml-names-errata for the errata, but
that doesn't exist.  Henry, Richard, I'll assume one of you will
make it exist asap.

For NS 1.0, both the transition req and the WD point to
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/xml-names11-errata for the errata, but
that doesn't exist.  Henry, Richard, I'll assume one of you will
make it exist asap.

>From the NS 1.1 request, I delete:

 A review copy with changes highlighted is available at
 http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/xml-names-11-2e-diff.html @@@

since there was nothing there, and I didn't have time to track
down the review copy.

In all cases, I'm not sure the statuses in the requests really
match those in the documents.  I didn't have time to deal with
that.

Again, I suspect in the rush I'm missed something, but I'm sending
out the 4 transition requests anyway in the hopes we can still
make it work.  I'm already on the road, so I'm hoping the editors,
staff contact, and co-chair can help fix the broken bits as they
appear.

paul
Received on Monday, 5 June 2006 22:01:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:34 GMT