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: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:47:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020AC8597C@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, <timbl@w3.org>, <steve@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <chairs@w3.org>, <michelsu@microsoft.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, 2008 March 17 9:29
> To: John Cowan
> Cc: Martin Duerst; Grosso, Paul; timbl@w3.org; steve@w3.org; 
> public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; webreq@w3.org; chairs@w3.org; 
> w3t-comm@w3.org; michelsu@microsoft.com
> Subject: Re: Transition Request: (2nd) PER Request for XML 
> Base Second Edition
> 
> On Monday, March 17, 2008, 3:01:15 PM, John wrote:
> 
> JC> Chris Lilley scripsit:
> 
> >> How come XML Base needs [a reference to LEIRIs]?
> 
> JC> Because that's the way the XML Core WG (or some 
> predecessor) wrote the
> JC> definition, back when nobody knew exactly what the rules 
> for IRIs were
> JC> going to be.  The same with XLink and the others.
> 
> Well, thats a far cry from what Martin said. Since the 
> primary places SVG, for instance, uses IRIs is XLink (15 or 
> so elements are XLink simple links) and the other places are 
> XML Base and ... erm, can't think of any others, that means 
> they are **all** LEIRI.

Yes.  SVG was one spec I had in mind.

I don't exactly agree with what it sounds like Martin said
(though it's hard to say what's a "far cry" when talking
about words like "should").

I agree with what I said:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008JanMar/0087

Remember, LEIRI is just terminology.  We aren't changing
the set of strings that are allowed by these specs or how
those strings should be processed (though hopefully we are
clarifying some fuzzier bits).  So whether you want to change
SVG to use the LEIRI terminology or not, there's nothing
wrong with the SVG spec as written now.

paul
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 14:49:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 March 2008 14:49:09 GMT