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

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

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:15:40 +0000
To: public-xml-core-wg <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5babzzth83.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Per Paul's request, here are some comments we might consider as the
basis for a reply to the OP. . .

ht writes:

> 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)

The specific dependencies are not circular

> * 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

This is the part I don't understand -- what's the "bad message"?

> 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.

There might or might not be support for this, but it will take a long
time.  In the mean time, we're just trying to clean up the situation a
little bit at a time, in keeping with our charter.  We couldn't embark
on any kind of XML++ effort without a new charter. . .
> 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/)

Good idea!

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 14:15:49 UTC

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