Re: Action to edit to AssocSS [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 July 28]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:29:56 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

> Simon,
>
> As co-editor of AssocSS, would you be able to accept
> the action below?

No, I'm on vacation for another four weeks.

Cheers,

> 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, 2010 July 28 11:16
>> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 July 28
>
>
>> > 11.  Associating Stylesheets.
>> >
>> > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss
>> >
>> > Our latest public draft is at
>> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/04/xml-stylesheet/
>> >
>> > The transition request for AssocSS is at
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Apr/0034
>> >
>> > We had an unsuccessful transition call last week.  See
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Apr/0057
>> >
>> > The editors drafted new wording for Section 2 Conformance; see
>> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/
>> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/diff.html
>> >
>> > Paul sent email to Daniel Glazman and TimBL requesting comment at
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010May/0012
>> > and there has been no response.
>> >
>> > Liam talked to TimBL July 1 and sent some sketchy email at
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0002
>> > explaining what we should do next.
>> >
>> > At our telcon last week, Paul took an action to suggest some
>> > change to our latest AssocSS draft, but at
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0028
>> > he threw in the towel suggesting that we just re-request
>> > that we take the latest AssocSS draft to PER.
>> >
>>
>> We had another discussion.
>>
>> Paul's opinions are recorded at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0028
>> He did not want to add the suggested words to the spec.
>>
>> DV also did not feel we should be adding such words.
>>
>> John took the stand that we should just add the words that
>> TimBL gave us so that we could get the spec out regardless
>> of whether we liked such an addition or not.
>>
>> After more discussion, we realized we were not going to
>> reach consensus, so the chair called for a roll call vote.
>>
>> RESOLVED:  That we add the following paragraph verbatim
>> as a second paragraph to the Note in section 2:
>>
>>  At the time of edition 1 (1999) the meaning of these
>>  p-attributes was not well specified, and at the time
>>  of edition 2 (2010) there is low interoperability in
>>  the values between implementations; future work may
>>  clarify this.
>>
>> No: Paul, DV
>> Yes: John, Norm, HT (proxy vote by Norm)
>> Concur: Liam
>>
>> Therefore, the WG AGREEED (voting 4 to 2) to add said paragraph
>> verbatim as a second paragraph to the Note in section 2.
>>
>> Paul informed the WG that, as PTC/Arbortext AC rep, he would
>> be filing an objection to those words in his PER review.
>>
>> ACTION to the editors (Simon?):  Update the 20 April 2010
>> draft PER of AssocSS as follows:
>>
>> 1.  Add the above quoted paragraph verbatim as a second
>>     paragraph to the Note in section 2.
>>
>> 2.  Change the pub dates (in the subtitle, this version
>>     URL [both published and the href], and anywhere else
>>     as necessary) to 5 August 2010.
>>
>> 3.  Change the end review date in the SotD to 10 September 2010.
>>
>> Then regenerate both the HTML and the diff-marked HTML.
>
>


-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Sunday, 1 August 2010 19:09:15 UTC