W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: XPointer: comments on Last Call Working Drafts

From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:06:57 -0700
To: <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>
Cc: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c273b4$de734900$dd0aa8c0@Silver>

Thank you for your comments on the xmlns() scheme Last Call draft,
which are archived at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2002JulSep/
0039.html.

The XML Linking Working Group has collected all the comments on
the documents and decided what changes to make to the draft. The
dispositions of your comments are given below. Please reply to
www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org within one week if you wish to
make a formal objection to these decisions.


The comments on this document were regarded as editorial, and
were referred to the editors with the instruction to use their
best judgment. The point-by-point response follows.

> - -------------------------------
> 1 Introduction
> para 3
> "The terms ..."
>        The term "application" isn't used at all in this spec either.

Done.

> "Note that errors defined by this specification..."
>        Ditto my comment on the same sentence in the element() scheme
spec.

Done.

> - -------------------------------
> 3 Language and Processing
> para 2
> "it is an xmlns() scheme error and"
>        Delete.

Done.

> para 3
> "S is as defined"
>        Change "S is" to "S and Char are".

Done.

> para 4
> "(NsURIRef)"
>        De-bold.

Done.  Linked instead.

> "and serves"
>        Insert "thus" after "and".

Done.

> "If a pointer part defines a binding for a namespace prefix that
already
> has an entry in the namespace binding context, the new entry overrides

> the old one."
>        This sentence should be moved to section 3.4 of the Framework
spec.

Not done.  This is not a constraint on the namespace binding context,
but a description of the behavior of how the xmlns() scheme interacts
with it.  A different scheme might behave differently.

> para 7
> "If the pointer part fails due to failure to conform to the syntax 
> described in this specification, it does not contribute an entry to
the
> namespace binding context."
>        This would be easier to state at the end of para 2: there,
change
>            the pointer part fails.
>        to
>            the pointer part fails and does not contribute an entry to
the
>            namespace binding context.

Done.

> para 9
> "The prefixes used in pointer parts ... the pointer part is
addressing"
>        You switch from plural to singular.

Fixed.



Best regards,

Ron Daniel Jr.
Acting chair, XML Linking WG

Tel: +1 925 368 8371
rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com
Received on Monday, 14 October 2002 15:07:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:44 GMT