W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:58:22 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E026822C6@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

OK, I can live with it in 2.1.1, so let's go with that

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] 
> Sent: 04 September 2002 20:39
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
> 
> 
>  Gudge,
>  since 2.1.1 does say an edge name is a QName, there will be 
> no mapping issues in the Encoding because it also uses 
> QNames. Either we remove the mention of XML Schema Qualified 
> Name from 2.1.1 and put the reference to Appendix B into 
> Encoding, or we put the reference to 2.1.1 because that's 
> where the recoding issues come up.
>  
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 21:34, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > Jacek,
> > 
> > Henrik originally suggested that the text go in 2.1.1, I disagreed
> with him, because the Data Model says NOTHING about an 
> encoding. And Appendix B ( ne้ A )really is an encoding.
> > 
> > Gudge
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:58:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT