RE: XML 1.0 PER

Whatever you decide is best is fine with me, as long as
we meet our goal of getting this to PER.

thanks,

paul 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: François Yergeau [mailto:francois@yergeau.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, 2008 January 10 22:36
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XML 1.0 PER
> 
> Grosso, Paul a écrit :
> > I meant that we should implement these changes (unless you disagree
> > or someone else screams), but also make a PE for them so that we'll
> > have an actual PE number to reference in the review version of the
> > spec and we'll have a real erratum to track this change.
> 
> OK, I completely misunderstood.
> 
> But for tracking purposes PE164 is not very good.  The new 
> Appendix J is 
> introduced by PE160, which is not yet published as an 
> erratum.  I think 
> I should simply modify PE160 to do what we (now) want.  I will keep 
> PE164 to track the changes to the Unicode references.
> 
> The redlining in PE164 now shows the changes between App. J and its 
> source in XML 1.1.  This might be useful for review, so I'll keep it 
> there for a little while for the group's benefit.
> 
> > What I'd like to have before next Wednesday's telcon is a PER-ready
> > draft including the Appendix J changes (i.e., what is now the PE 164
> > changes) so that we can vote to take it to PER during next week's
> > telcon.  We will consider that vote to imply WG approval of PE 164
> > so that we can consider PE 164 resolved (along with the rest of the
> > PEs in countdown until Jan 16) so that we will then have no 
> unresolved
> > PEs, and (unless I'm still confused) all PEs *EXCEPT PE 161* will be
> > reflected in XML 1.0 5th Edition.
> 
> Sounds like a plan.
> 
> -- 
> François
> 
>

Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 17:17:39 UTC