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

Re: XLink 1.1 open issues

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 09:51:19 -0400
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2y6tapcfc.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> writes:

> My final suggestions on how to close each of these issues
> is embedded below.  Unless someone has something to say
> in email before this week's telcon, I see no reason to
> spend time on these during the telcon, so I'll assume my
> suggestions are acceptable to all.
>> > 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?
> I suggest Norm asks the commentor if they are happy with
> our resolution (saying that, if we hear nothing soon, we'll
> assume acceptance).

Will do.

>> > 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.
> No one has given me an answer on this.
> Mohamed, Henry, Norm, John, someone who knows RelaxNG,
> what is the answer here?

This is about the XSD, isn't it? And it appears to have been fixed.

Henry, where is the XSD?

>> > 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}?
> I've been told this is a mistake, so Norm should fix this
> in the draft and reply to the commentor saying so.

What ever possessed me to literally inline the grammar in a CDATA

Fixed now.

>> > 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.
> Just remove this item from the DoC.

I'm inclined to just mark it closed.

>> > 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.
> Just remove this item from the DoC.

Uhm. Ok.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Are you not the future of all the
http://nwalsh.com/            | memories stored within you? The future
                              | of the past?--Paul Valéry

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 13:52:13 UTC

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