W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > January 2007

RE: Review comment wrt XML Base PER -> REC transition

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:54:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30205FB57C2@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "public-xml-core-wg" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Let's discuss now in email.  Our next telcon is the 31st.

Henry, why don't you go first.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry 
> S. Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, 2007 January 16 10:19
> To: public-xml-core-wg
> Subject: Review comment wrt XML Base PER -> REC transition
> 
> 
> The following comes from Mohamed Zergaoui of INNOVIMAX
> 
> I think we should discuss it, and if possible respond before the end
> of the comment period. . .
> 
> - ---------------
> 
> The reviewer recommended that "XML Base (Second Edition)" be 
> returned for
> further work due to substantial issues.
> 
> 
> Additional comments about the specification:
>    I don't feel any necessity to make XML Base dependant of XLink
> Normatively
> 
> I have nothing againt XLink, but  
> * XLink already depends normatively on XML Base (chicken and egg)
> * XInclude and a lot of other specifications until now 
> doesn't depend on
> XLink.
> 
> I understand that reusing normative part defined in XLink is 
> a good idea,
> but it gives a very bad messages on dependencies between specs
> 
> For me, it seems to be the right time for the W3C to prepare 
> the future of
> XML and make some clean distinctions between what has to be 
> in the Core and
> what has to depend on the XML Core
> 
> 10 years after XML, it seems the big deal to propose to 
> reshape XML  1.0,
> Namespaces in XML, XML Base, XML:id and Associating Style 
> Sheets with XML
> documents into a big XML++ proposal, and cut some SGMLish 
> feature from XML
> Then define the XPointer model above for defining clearly  XInclude as
> *the* inclusion process and XLink as *the* linking model.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, giving an uptodate graph of all the dependancies between
> XMLish publications seems to be a high necessity (the one already
> available hasn't been updated since 2000 :
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/xmldep/)
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 16:54:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:37 UTC