Re: Requirement 5

In the interest of completeness, I forward this (with permission) from
private correspondence with Elliotte.

Elliotte wrote:

Norman Walsh wrote:
> Hi Elliotte,
> I think we've addressed a couple (though perhaps not all :-) xml:id
> issues in the way you suggested. In the interest of serving the letter
> of the process, could you please reply to say that you are (or are
> not, as the case may be) satisfied? In particular, I think you'll
> be satisfied with our resolution of
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Jun/0010
> and probably not with
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Jun/0005
>

That's accurate. I still think xml:id is unnecessarily broken with
respect to canonicalization. The first issue is OK.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Friday, 24 June 2005 20:06:44 UTC