Re: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11"

Whatever we do, I think that the minimum to do is to allow someone following
http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink to see that there exists a 1.1 version of this
spec that is a REC

The way to make it visible could be

1) point www.w3.org/TR/xlink to www.w3.org/TR/xlink11
2) modify www.w3.org/TR/xlink to add a note saying that this spec has been
superseded by 1.1

I know that their is a lot of counter examples (XPath and XPath 2.0 for
example) but I can't see any example with minor version change (apart the
special case of xhtml11 and html)

The worst example being probably www.w3.org/TR/SVG which points to a Working
Draft...of the 2nd edition of 1.1


The current situation w.r.t to xlink isn't satisfactory

Regards,

Mohamed



On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

>
> > -----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 August 11 10:57
> > To: Ian Jacobs
> > Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11"
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Innovimax SARL
> > > Sent: Friday, 2010 August 06 13:10
> > > To: XML CORE
> > > Subject: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11"
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > My understanding is that now that xlink11 is a REC
> > www.w3.org/TR/xlink
> > > should point to xlink11
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> > The XML Core WG discussed this during our telcon today,
> > and we understand that your position would agree with
> > that expressed by Mohamed above, and we understand you
> > would be the one to make this happen, therefore we are
> > bringing this to your attention.
>
> When Ian wrote back asking if it was okay if it took
> a few days to decide about this, I told him that actually
> the WG wasn't universally thrilled with the idea anyway.
>
> His reaction did not match either Henry or my expectations.
> The interchange went:
>
> > > In fact, most of us on the WG weren't really thrilled with
> > > the suggestion,
> >
> > Hmm, then why are we doing it?
> >
> > > but Henry explained that this is something
> > > you would probably want to do as soon as you noticed--and
> > > I remember you doing this with XSL 1.0 and XSL 1.1 over
> > > the WG's objection--so I figure it was only proper to let
> > > you know about this one.
> >
> > I have no urge to do it unless it's useful. Who wants this?
> >
> >   _ Ian
>
> So I think that puts it back to us to decide what we want
> to ask Ian to do.
>
> paul
>
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €