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

RE: Paul's review of John and Henry's 2119-ification

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:22:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302029581F7@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

To close this loop, I raised two points, one of
which John had already anticipated and another
of which requires no action as detailed below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, 2006 February 22 16:47
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Paul's review of John and Henry's 2119-ification
>  
> > > ACTION to Henry [due Feb 22]:  Review the MAYs again and 
> > > create a marked up version with changes.
> > 
> > Henry produce a version at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml
> > 
> > Norm looked at it and approved it.
> > 
> > ACTION to John, Paul:  Review what Henry did.
> 
> I'm no expert in this 2119-ification, but I noted
> two places where the suggested change wasn't of
> obvious need to me.
> 
> In the third to last paragraph of
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml#sec-nor
malization
> -checking
> it says:
>  XML applications ... SHOULDshould ensure that the
>  output is fully normalized; 
> 
> This draft is changing SHOULD to should.  
> 
> *** Oh, nevermind, I just realized this is one of
> the cases John also reversed on, so it seems we
> agree this should go back to SHOULD.

So we all agree this should go back to SHOULD.

> 
> In the penultimate paragraph of
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml#sec-ext
ernal-ent
> where there is the defn of public identifier, we have:
>  An XML processor ... MAYmay use any combination of the
>  public and system identifiers ....
> 
> The draft is changing MAY to may.  Is this because
> the statement isn't constraining anything, but rather
> is just saying that what a processor might end up doing?
> I guess I'd like to be sure I understand why this
> shouldn't be a 2119 SHOULD.

John answered in private email explaining what I
suspected above, so I'm fine with the way this is now.
No further action needed here.

paul
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 00:21:10 GMT

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