W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > March 2008

RE: Transition Request: (2nd) PER Request for XML Base Second Edition

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:04:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020AB97100@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: <timbl@w3.org>, <steve@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <webreq@w3.org>, <chairs@w3.org>, <w3t-comm@w3.org>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, <michelsu@microsoft.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, 2008 March 13 6:32
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: timbl@w3.org; steve@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; 
> webreq@w3.org; chairs@w3.org; w3t-comm@w3.org; Martin Duerst; 
> michelsu@microsoft.com
> Subject: Re: Transition Request: (2nd) PER Request for XML 
> Base Second Edition

> Is the same change (to reference RFC 3987bis) expected to be 
> made to XLink 1.1?

Yes.  See the last paragraph of my email at
for a more detailed discussion.

For that matter, see the editors draft of the upcoming 
XLink 1.1 LC at
as this draft does now reference LEIRIs.

> Should specifications that currently use IRI in XML specify 
> LEIRI instead?

It depends.  "LEIRI" is just a new term, not a new concept.
If the concept under consideration is, in fact, a LEIRI,
they are welcome to use it; otherwise, they should not.

The aforementioned "last paragraph of my email" lists the
specs under the XML Core WG auspices that use the LEIRI
concept and for which we therefore plan to revise to use
the LEIRI terminology.

If you are aware of a spec out there that you think uses
the LEIRI concept, please let the XML Core WG know, and
we'll be happy to provide our opinion as to whether it
should use the LEIRI term or not.

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 15:05:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:39 UTC