W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2011

RE: xml-model comments from ISO member bodies received in DIS ballot

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 10:25:58 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA0283A6C8@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Jirka.

Re JP-002, I looked at our Note again too, and I think we should
make it clearer than just a font change.  Perhaps we should put
"[unspecified]" (that is, in brackets) as well as the font change.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jirka Kosek
> Sent: Thursday, 2011 April 07 6:24
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: xml-model comments from ISO member bodies received in DIS
> ballot
> 
> Hi,
> 
> you can see result of ballot (member only) at:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2011Apr/att-0070/dis-

> ballot-result.pdf
> 
> Let me comment on them.
> 
> CZ - this is actually just typo found by John recently, simple
> editorial fix
> 
> JP-001 - I think that this comment is resolved by adding sentence
> proposed by John during the last telcon
> 
> JP-002 - This is misunderstanding on the commenter side caused by ISO
> style guide. If you look at ISO version of document
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2011Apr/att-0070/dis-

> for-ballot.pdf)
> you will see that in the table word "unspecified" is show in the same
> typeface as "application/xml". But "application/xml" is here concrete
> MIME type and "unspecified" just says that given pseudo-attribute is
> not
> used. W3C version of document uses different fonts so it is clear what
> is meant and that "unspecified" is not special keyword or value for
> pseudo-attribute. I will try to change fonts used in the table to match
> W3C version to make distinction clear.
> 
> JP-003 - This is just related to different style guide used for ISO
> standards. There is nothing we can do about this at XML Core WG. I
> think
> that it is very likely that this comment will not result in any change
> because ITTF (body which is responsible for publication of IS) was OK
> with the current DIS text. If some change is really necessary it should
> be sufficient just to editorially extract (only in ISO version) parts
> of
> section "Conformance requirements" into separate "Terms and
> Definitions"
> section.
> 
> So for W3C version of xml-model only first two comments are
> interesting,
> rest is just style issue in ISO version.
> 
> 
> 					Jirka
> 
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>        Professional XML consulting and training services
>   DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
> ------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 14:27:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 April 2011 14:28:58 GMT