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

Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 May 10

From: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 14:27:02 -0700
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <445FB7A6.50805@yergeau.com>

Grosso, Paul a écrit :
> ACTION to Francois for this week's telcon:  Produce 
> PER-ready drafts of XML 1.0 4th Ed and XML 1.1 2nd Ed.

I've been doing progress on this.  I encountered a couple of issues:

1) We need implementation reports for both 1.0 and 1.1.  For 1.0 3rd 
edition, we had 
http://www.w3.org/XML/2003/09/xml10-3e-implementation.html.  So I made 
up similar URLs, but of course right now they point nowhere.  We'll need 
to attend to that.


2) I'm not sure what to do with the diff markup (colorization) of the 
changes to 2119 keywords (only MAYs, in fact, IIRC). In 3rd edition when 
we introduced the keywords, we said so in the status section but did not 
use any diff markyup in the text.  Right now, the situation in both 1.0 
4e and 1.1 2e is that all the changes are marked up, and in fact even 
the MAYs that do not change are marked as changed!  This helped with our 
internal review, but I'm leaning towards doing away with this diff 
markup -- at the very least that for MAYs that do not change.

2b)  If we want to keep the diff markup on the 2119 keywords that do 
change, then there is the issue of which erratum to point to (all other 
changes have a link to the proper erratum).  Right now we have a PE in 
the running log, but no officially published erratum for the 2219 
changes.  We could either make an official erratum and point to it, or 
keep the colorization but have no link.

Opinions?

-- 
François
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 21:27:00 GMT

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