W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:08:01 +0000
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5by815acku.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Bjoern Hoehrmann writes:

> * Norman Walsh wrote:
>>As near as we can tell, this is a suggestion to update XML Base so that
>>it is consistent with XLink 1.1 and IRI. The Core WG will undertake to
>>construct such an erratum to XML Base.
> Could you elaborate which changes the XML Core Working Group is going to
> propose and what the schedule would be to make a call for review of the
> edited recommendation or the proposed correction so this change can be-
> come normative? Without knowing how the Working Group is going to handle
> this problem I cannot review the response, I'm afraid.

For better or worse we can't ride these two horses simultaneously.  In
general W3C practice is to allow a limited amount (1 or 2 stages in
the process) slippage between co-dependent specs.  In this case I
think the intent is clear, i.e. that absolutization is as per XML
Base.  It's also true that XML Base needs to be updated, but not in
ways which will have any significant impact on absolutization.

Norm, Bjoern, do you think it would help to add a Note after the
relevant text which says something along the lines of

 *Note* As of this writing [XML Base] is not IRI-friendly -- for the
 purposes of this specification will need to make appropriate
 adjustments in anticipation of an appropriate amendment to [XML

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 15:08:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:25 UTC