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

RE: XLink status

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:38:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302124CE5EE@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Norm.

One comment at the bottom.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Tuesday, 2010 February 09 14:29
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XLink status
> 
> > 9.  XLink 1.1.
> 
> I published new drafts a couple of days ago. Or maybe yesterday. But I
> did it ;-)
> 
> > Norm has prepared an updated DoC at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/05/xlinklc/
> [...]
> > ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC accordingly.
> 
> Now updated. I think 5 is resolved, though I'm not sure.
> 
> It looks like Henry left 8 dangling.
> 
> > The latest editor's draft (24 January 2010) is at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview.html
> >
> > Henry finds the DTD/RelaxNG/XSD fragments throughout the spec
> unhelpful
> > and would like to remove them (leaving them only in the appendices).
> > Henry specifically referenced the example immediately preceding 5.3.
> > But this was in the CR, so we will probably leave it, but we will
> > remove the default for xlink:type.
> 
> Where will we remove this?
> 
> > Norm created an updated IR at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/ir.html
> >
> > ACTION to Norm:  Adding a mention of the test suite at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/03/xlink11-tests to the IR.
> 
> Done.
> 
> > A diff between 1.0 and the latest PR ready draft is at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview-diff.html
> >
> > ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC and IR.
> 
> Done.
> 
> > ACTION to Norm:  Make the latest draft a PR.
> 
> Done.
> 
> > ACTION to Norm:  Also produce a diff between the Xlink 1.1 CR
> > and this latest draft.
> 
> Done. Well, I did it between the last published draft and this draft.
> I could go back to the previous CR as well, if you want.

At the risk of overloading people with diffs, I'd like to forestall
any questions of "what's changed since..." so it would be good to
have a diff between the last CR and this draft.  After all, we are
trying to skip CR this time, so it makes sense to have a diff that
we can point to and say "this is exactly what's changed since we
successfully exited our last CR".

Just be sure it's clear which diff is which (since I'm getting a
bit lost myself about that).

paul
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:38:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:38:59 GMT