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: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 17:57:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302033707B5@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.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 
> François Yergeau
> Sent: Monday, 2006 May 08 16:27
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 May 10
> 
> 
> 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.

I just ran through what we call "substantive" errata in
http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
and I see rationales like:
 "This was an oversight...."
 "The sentence was inconsistent with another one...."
 "It was not clear...."
 "The spec was not clear...."
 "The S in production [32] ... was mistakenly changed ... in XML 1.1...."
 "The original text confusingly used the word "intent"...."

Those all sound like spec clarifications, not anything
that requires "implementation"--or at least, nothing
that requires that we document that it is implementable.

As such, I see nothing wrong with continuing to point
to the same implementation reports as we do in the
previous editions for both specs.

> 
> 
> 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. 

> 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?

Assuming we mention the fact in the status section that 
we did some (de-)2119-ization, I'd be fine with NOT
keeping the diff markup in the text.

But if we want to show diff markup (only for the changed 
ones), I'm fine with showing the colorization but not 
having it link to anything.

Just because I'm afraid someone will ask us exactly
which ones changed, I'd lean toward the second option.

paul
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 22:00:49 GMT

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