W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > August 2010

RE: XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2010 August 16

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:40:55 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DAA85741@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, 2010 August 19 10:20
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2010 August 16
> Hash: SHA1
> Grosso, Paul writes:
> > ACTION to Henry:  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 [something reasonable].
> >
> > 3.  Change the end review date in the SotD to [something].
> Done, but not published to public space.  See
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/09/xml-stylesheet.html#conformance-
> requirements

But you didn't add the paragraph verbatim.  The WG decided
quite carefully to add it verbatim despite the fact--or
because of the fact--that it made no sense as written.

I really want the paragraph verbatim.  Don't even try to
add any links.

Why does this have a copy of the "An xml-stylesheet processor may be
para under "xml-stylesheet processors" inserted and then crossed out?

Same question about the Note.

Is it because the diff is showing the differences between our
previously last editors draft rather than the May 19 draft PER?

If so, is this the right thing to be doing, or should we instead
just be doing diffs between the May 19 draft and the latest?

> I am not only going to formally object to this Note, I am seriously
> considering taking my name off the document if it goes to Edited REC
> this way.  This text belongs in the Director's Decision, not the
> spec. itself.
> Note that I have made this change assuming we want to adopt my
> proposed change from
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/#conformance-
> requirements
> in any case.

I'm not sure I understand this bit.  Remind me what this was?

> I think we need to talk about this again before going public,
> I'm sorry.

It'll be on our August 25 agenda.

Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 15:47:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:42 UTC