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

Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 July 29

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:30:28 +0200
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uxugg2ocidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:02:37 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

> Absent organizations

Sorry for missing the call.


>> 11.  Associating Stylesheets.
>>
>> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss
>>
>> Associating stylesheets with XML version 1.0 is at:
>> http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/
>>
>> The Errata document is at:
>> http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/errata
>>
>> As of 2009 July 20, Paul has updated the latest issues document at
>> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm
>> with resolutions in countdown and a few open issues.
>>
>> ACTION to WG:  Review the proposed resolutions in count down at
>> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm
>> especially those questions shaded pink.
>
> CONSENSUS to go with resolution 5.5b where duplicate pseudo-attributes
> mean the whole PI MUST be ignored.
>
> TENTANTIVE CONSENSUS (without Simon and John) to go with option #1 for
> issue #7 (aka option #1 for issue #11) which says that the value of
> all pseudo-attributes (including href) just gets passed through to
> the (rest of the) application.  Of course, another layer of the
> application can do whatever validation of the href value.

I'm ok with this.

There can be other specifications that have requirements on the  
application to do something with the pseudo-attributes for a specific  
style sheet language.


> CONSENSUS on issue #15 to go with Henry's latest suggestion at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jul/0072
> and let the editors develop the specific wording for the draft.
>
>>
>> We discussed that we should add a conformance statement
>> to the spec.  We tried a few suggested wordings including:
>>
>>  An application (as defined in [XML]) conforms to this spec
>>  if is processing all XML processing instructions whose
>>  [PITarget] is 'xml-stylesheet' as specified by this spec.
>>
>> but didn't get complete closure.
>>
>> ACTION to Henry:  Suggest some conformance wording in email.
>
> Done:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jul/0017
>
> We leave it to the editors to provide specific wording in the draft.
>
>>
>> ACTION to Henry: Check to ensure it is acceptable to create
>> a draft PER but no errata.
>
> We plan to publish a "draft PER" document and request comments
> before we publish the actual PER.  We don't plan to write a
> bunch of individual errata.
>
>>
>> Henry and Simon will be co-editors of the AssocSS 2nd Edition.
>
> ACTION to Henry and Simon:  Produce a draft of the AssocSS 2nd Ed PER.

Should I get CVN access to dev.w3.org or similar?

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 19:31:20 UTC

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