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

RE: XLink 1.1 updated

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:28:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020ADCC9EA@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Wednesday, 2008 March 12 11:10
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XLink 1.1 updated
> 
> With new conformance sections:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview.html
> 
> and a diff from the CR.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview-diff.html


In 3.1, we define the terms "full conformance" and "simple
conformance" and then talk about "satisfying the constraints
of * conformance" or "claiming * conformance".  Then in one
place in 3.3.2, we say "fully conformant".  I wonder if we
should avoid the word "conformant" or if we should define
it, e.g., "An application that satifies the constraints of
* conformance is said to be *ly conformant".  I'm really
no expert on conformance statements, so I don't know what
to recommend here--what do others think?

---

In 3.1.1:

It would seem that the parenthetical "must" should come
after the word "conditions" rather than "applications."

Points 1 and 2 end with ", and" but points 3 and 4 end 
with periods (full stops).  

Furthermore, points 1-4 start with a lowercase (which is fine, 
given the sentence-like composition of the first few list items,
though perhaps a semi-colon would be slightly better if the
lead in sentence makes the conjunction clear), but point 5 
does not (and points 3 and 4 end with a full stop).

---

In 3.1.2, we appear to allow an application to be in simple
conformance even if it does something non-conformant (other
than ignore them) with extended links.  Is this intended?

---

Regarding the diff, I think there are lots of examples
that are shown as new added text (in yellow) that shouldn't
be, and this makes it look like we are making a lot more
changes than we really are.  In particular:

Why is the example just preceding 5.1.2 shown as new 
added text?

Why is the first example in 5.1.2 shown as new added text?

Why is the first half of the last example in 5.1.3 shown 
as new added text?

Why is the example in 5.1.4 shown as new added text?

Why is the last example in 5.2 shown as new added text?

Why are examples in 5.3 shown as new added text?

Why is appendix C shown as new added text?

Why is appendix D shown as new added text?

Also, is there a reason that all the references are
marked as changed?  If they've really been changed,
fine, but I don't see the changes for most of them.

---

The current relevancy of Appendix E is questionable.

I would personally prefer to delete this appendix,
so I will propose this during our telcon.  If you
have strong feelings and will miss the telcon, make
your case in email prior to the telcon.

paul
Received on Monday, 24 March 2008 16:31:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 March 2008 16:31:00 GMT