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

RE: Comments on AssocSS Editor's Draft 10 November 2009

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:35:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3021174573D@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com]
> Sent: Monday, 2009 November 16 12:53
> To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on AssocSS Editor's Draft 10 November 2009
> 
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:14:12 +0100, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> Is the following paragraph ok? Should it say tokens instead of
> symbols?
> >
> > Moot, since you accepted my suggested rewording below that
> > avoids the issue.
> >
> >>
> >> "The productions in this specification use the same notation as used
> in
> >> the XML specification [XML]. Symbols in the grammar that are not
> >> defined
> >> in this specification are defined in the XML specification."
> 
> Forgot to comment on this part. The question is not moot since the
> paragraph quoted above is still in the draft (in the terminology
> section;

I missed that.  I guess I'd change "Symbols" to "Tokens" there
unless someone else has a better suggestion or strong opinion.

> maybe that's out of place, maybe the terminology and conformance
> sections
> should be merged, since infoset and XML are more of dependencies than
> mere terminology).

I think the terminology and conformance sections are good
separated as they are.

paul

Received on Monday, 16 November 2009 21:37:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:41 UTC