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: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:46:32 +0100
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bhbiq8mpj.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Grosso, Paul writes:

> 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.

OK, done.  And I now _have_ taken my name off it.

  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/09/xml-stylesheet.html

> Why does this have a copy of the "An xml-stylesheet processor may be
> part..."
> 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?

Between the 20 April draft, which is what you told me to edit, and
which is what Glazou and TimBL were responding to, and the current
draft.

> 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 think so, but I can change it if the Group says to do so.

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMbXwIkjnJixAXWBoRAhQqAJ4hGX8kEC2qmPHUrbsTaAOfJsDF0wCfSxAv
TCw+eKSpU7uQmThbkuPQbmc=
=T2uU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:54:37 UTC

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