W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2009

XLink 1.1 open issues [was: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 April 22]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:39:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020F546556@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, 2009 April 22 9:14
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 April 22
> 
> "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> writes:
> > Norm has prepared a DoC at 
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/05/xlinklc/
> >
> > ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC.
> 
> Done.

Issue 5: migration from ISO usage of xsd for xlink 1999 
--------------------------------------------------------
It looks like Henry gave a response.  Do we need any
other follow-up other than asking the commentor if he
approves of our resolution?

Issue 6:  use of xs:NCNAME in non-normative w3c schema of xlink 1.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see any such uses in the sample schema any more.

I do see NCNAME in the RelaxNG schema.  I don't know RelaxNG,
so I'm just assuming this is okay.

But in appendix D, I do see 3 uses of {xsd:NCNAME} which
I wonder about.  Is this a RelaxNG thing, or--if this is
an XSD thing--should that be {xsd:NCName}?

Issue 7: XLink 1.1 served with incorrect encoding 
-------------------------------------------------
This is not really a comment on the spec.  I'd suggest
we just delete it from the DoC, though I'm also willing
just to close it, but then we need to email the commentor
to ask if they are satified with our resolution.

Issue 8: XML Schema for XLink 1.1
---------------------------------
This is not really a comment on the spec except to urge
us to move forward, so I'm not sure how to address this
at this point.  We can either delete it from the DoC, or
we can just leave it open as we proceed toward PR, since
having such a comment open won't cause any problems on
the transition call.

paul
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 14:41:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 April 2009 14:41:01 GMT