W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > September 2007

Re: Updated draft (another try at consensus)

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:11:41 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20070911110047.05790990@mail.muzmo.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Procedurally, I like the idea of a separate WG Note because
"namespace fixup" is likely to be a subject of much discussion
going forward. I suspect that it may become its own REC eventually.

At 10:47 AM 9/11/2007 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
>Acting on the assumption that the text I proposed[1] is accepted as an
>improvement, I have added it to the draft[2].
>
>Furthermore, if I understand correctly[3], it would be an acceptable
>compromise to add the detailed descriptions of what actions are
>required on a step-by-step basis to achieve namespace well-formed
>results as a non-normative appendix.
>
>If that's the case, I don't see why we can't proceed to Last Call and
>address any informative changes in an appendix (or perhaps even a
>separate WG Note) at some later date.
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
>[1] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0108.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#namespace-fixup
>[3] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0111.html
>
>--
>Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | 'tis expressly against the law of arms:
>http://nwalsh.com/            | 'tis as arrant a piece of knavery, mark
>                               | you now, as can be offer't; in your
>                               | conscience, now, is it not?--Fluellen,
>                               | Henry V
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 15:16:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT