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

RE: Changes checked in to son-of-3023

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:37:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30211A6DA68@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Henry,

Do you have a way to contact Chris to extract a response to my email
here?

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 November 18 11:18
> To: Chris Lilley; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Changes checked in to son-of-3023
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Have you seen these comments?
> 
> Most of the are editorial, and Henry said he was fine with
> my suggested additional Note, so let me know if you have any
> problems with implementing my suggestions.
> 
> paul
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> > Sent: Monday, 2009 November 09 13:45
> > To: Chris Lilley; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Changes checked in to son-of-3023
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Lilley
> > > Sent: Friday, 2009 November 06 16:20
> > > To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> > > Subject: Changes checked in to son-of-3023
> > >
> > > Hello public-xml-core-wg,
> > >
> > > Following our productive meeting yesterday, I have edited in the
> > > changes we agreed and the result is available at
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html
> > >
> > > (xml and text versions also available).
> > >
> > > Please check that the wording in section 5 is as we agreed
> > > http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html#frag
> >
> >
> > s/fragement/fragment/g in the first para of section 5
> > (two occurrences).
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Though I don't feel strongly about this, the first para
> > has two occurrences of "may" that are not 2119 MAYs.
> > Since the meaning here is really one of possibility,
> > not permission, I suggest changing those two occurrences
> > to "can".
> >
> > ---
> >
> > delete the inappropriate comma in the third sentence
> > of the second para.  (See below for a suggested replacement
> > for this sentence.)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > In the last sentence of the 4th para, I'm not sure the
> > phrase "such as the xmlns scheme and other schemes" is
> > really necessary, but if we are going to mention the
> > xmlns scheme, I would thing we should add it to
> > Informative references and have a link to the reference.
> > (I know I made a previous comment about removing the
> > reference from the Normative References.)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > The second para says that XpointerFramework allows
> > "simple names" and the fourth para talks about
> > supporting "barenames".  In fact, the term "barename"
> > was only used in pre-Rec versions of the spec; the
> > current term is "shorthand pointer".  I suggest the
> > third sentence of the 2nd para be augmented to read:
> >
> >  It allows simple names (called shorthand pointers) as well
> >  as more complex constructions based on named schemes.
> >
> > and then the reference to "barenames" in the 4th para
> > should be changed to "shorthand pointers" (without the
> > quotes).
> >
> > ---
> >
> > With this version, we have gone from disallowing use of
> > xpointer schemes besides shorthand pointer and element()
> > to allowing anything that matches the framework syntax
> > (albeit with a "should not" for unregistered schemes).
> >
> > Now that our wording allows use of other xpointer schemes
> > besides those that are XPointer W3C Recommendations, I would
> > prefer to see a warning about using other xpointer schemes.
> > After all, there are tons of "registered" schemes that will
> > not be universally supported.  (There are 18 schemes just
> > for wsdl in the registry.)
> >
> > Therefore, I would like to see a sentence such as the following
> > added to paragraph three:
> >
> >  Because applications are not required to support schemes other
> >  than the 'element' scheme, use of other schemes can reduce
> >  universal interoperability; such use SHOULD be carefully
> >  considered in each case.
> >
> > Or some other such wording.  URI resolution is such an integral
> > part of the web, and I don't want people expecting that they can
> > use any of the 18 WSDL schemes (or any of the others in the
> > registry) with the same expectations of support as using a
> > shorthand pointer.
> >
> >
> > paul
> >
> >
> 
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 15:39:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 15:39:21 GMT