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

Re: XLink 1.1 updated

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:49:29 -0400
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2ve39leva.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> was heard to say:
| 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?

I don't claim expertise with conformance statements either.

| 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).

Ok, I tried to clean that up a bit.

| 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?

Probably not. I was going to say MUST but that would forbid an
application from claiming simple conformance *and* doing a little bit
more (but not enough for full conformance. Do we want to do that?

| 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:

Well. See. They're generated automatically. I don't know why they
appear changed, but I'll take a closer look.

| 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.

I'm fine deleting it.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Simplicity is always a virtue.--Edward
http://nwalsh.com/            | Abbey

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 14:50:06 UTC

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