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

RE: Editor's review copy of XML Namespaces 1.0 Third Edition

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:36:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302104A240C@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Everyone please note that we hope to publish this August 3
which means we will be voting to approve publication of
this as a PER on our next telcon a week from today, so
be sure to review this by then.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 July 22 9:23
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Editor's review copy of XML Namespaces 1.0 Third Edition
> Grosso, Paul writes:
> > It generally looks good (not counting the front matter, of course).
> Front matter now done, sorry to have not got that in place before.

Looking better.

The subtitle still says Rec instead of PER.

The errata link right under the editors list should be changed to
http://www.w3.org/XML/2009/xml-names-errata to match what you say
in the SoTD, and you'll need to put an empty stub document there
and then run the link checker on this document.

Is it really reasonable to put a date of 31 August 2009 for the
end of the review period?  That's just 4 weeks and during the
month of August.  I don't feel strongly about it, but I also
wouldn't object to going into the first week of September.

Have you run pubrules on this yet?

> > Comparing the diff version with the errata document, I note:
> >
> > 1.  We turned "attributes unique" into an NSC, but there is no
> >     corresponding erratum for this.  This doesn't really bother
> >     me, but I thought I'd mention it.
> Hmm.  That's NPE29 [1], which I _thought_ we had approved. . .  Yes,
> we did [2], I just failed to update the NPE and add an actual erratum
> - -- done now.

Yep, our email about this crossed--thanks.

> > 2.  In Appendix F, you did not include in the PER the Note in
> >     the erratum that explains production [6].  I think you should,
> >     as even though I was present during the WG discussion, I had
> >     already forgotten the explanation as to how production [6]
> >     and I couldn't re-figure it out without reading the Note.
> Oversight on my part, now included.


Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2009 14:37:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:40 UTC