W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 1999

XML XPointer Requirements comments by DC and TBL

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:55:01 -0500
Message-ID: <016401be6752$d2d5aab0$a60a1712@col.w3.org>
To: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
These comments are in a publicly accessible web page.
http://www.w3.org/1999/03/a.html

As Dan says, comments vary from minor to major - I hope they
can be distinguished.

Excuse me for originally making them member-visible only.

Tim

(Credit to the w3c web team for the tools for changing access
without changing the URI !)





> >Return-Path: <connolly@w3.org>
> >Message-ID: <36DCEDA1.3BF5@w3.org>
> >Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 02:06:57 -0600
> >From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> >To: w3c-xml-linking-ig@w3.org
> >CC: timbl@w3.org, michael@w3.org, swick@w3.org
> >Subject: XPointer requirements feedback from Director and Team
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >Steven, Bill, and everybody,
> >
> >In preparation for the 12 Mar XML plenary meeting,
> >we did a W3C Team review XPointer requirements
> >today. We touched on XLink too, but didn't get very far there.
> >
> >We attempted to capture the results in:
> >
> >==============
> >XML XPointer Requirements
> >Version 1.0
> >
> >annotated W3C Note 24-Feb-1999
> >
> >This Version:
> >     $Id: a.html,v 1.7 1999/03/02 23:38:24 connolly Exp $
> >       http://www.w3.org/1999/03/a.html
> >annotates:
> >     http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-xptr-req-19990224
> >
> >Status of this document
> >
> >This is a member-confidential annotated version of the 24 Feb XPointer
> >requirements doc.
> >
> >Comments by Tim Berners-Lee look like this
> >==============
> >
> >I expect many of the comments can be addressed with
> >small clarifications, but some may result from architectural
> >differences between what we expected when we chartered
> >the group and what the group has come up with since.
> >So even though the comments
> >are somewhat rough, I hope you agree it's better
> >to share them in this form at this time than attempt to polish
> >them further.
> >
> >I hope folks get a chance to chat with TimBL
> >in San Jose about architectural issues.
> >
> >Meanwhile, I think Daniel V. is prepared to follow up in email
> >discussion here in the IG. I'm likely to be consumed
> >by other stuff at least for a while.
> >
> >--
> >Dan Connolly
> >http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> >phone:+1-512-310-2971 (office, mobile)
Received on Friday, 5 March 1999 16:49:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:40 GMT