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

Re: XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:04:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020217837E@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>

>* Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>>> 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
>> Base].
>
>If this note points out more clearly that there are unresolved
technical
>issues this would work for me. However looking at the 14
Recommendations
>the XML Core Working Group is required to maintain and considering that
>the XML Core Working Group apparently never made normative corrections
>to 13 of them in spite of many known problems, I need to know more
about
>how the XML Core Working Group is going to handle this update to the
XML
>Base Recommendation.

The XML Core WG plans to add the above suggested note to the 
XLink 1.1 specification, but we do not consider there to be 
unresolved technical issues with XLink 1.1.  

Does this adequately address your comment, or do you wish for
the XML Core WG to record your feelings on this matter as an 
official objection when we request CR?

Paul Grosso
for the XML Core WG
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:04:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:46 GMT