RE: Re: Issue 475 closed

Your friendly amendment is reasonable and satisfactory to me. However, 
I will bring this to the WGs attention in the next teleconf to confirm 
that the amendment is satisfactory with the full membership.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.at]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 5:27 AM
To: Mahan Michael (Nokia-NRC/Boston)
Cc: XMLP Comments
Subject: Re: Issue 475 closed


Mike, I'd suggest a small friendly amendment here:

Such packaging mechanisms MUST be able to represent, with full fidelity 
all the parts created according to 3 XOP's Processing Model (see 3.1 
Creating XOP Packages), and MUST be used in a manner that provides a 
means of designating a distinguished root (main, primary etc.) part.

Just added the parenthesized part of the last line to explain better
that it need not be called "root" part, but XOP calls it that. 8-)

Jacek


On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 20:47, michael.mahan@nokia.com wrote:
> Jacek,
> 
> You raised an issue[1] regarding XOP[2]. The WG agrees with your
> concern regarding XOP consistency when describing XOP packaging 
> requirements and the notion of a root part. The working group will 
> change the text in Section 4, paragraph 1 to read:
> 
> "Such packaging mechanisms MUST be able to represent, with full fidelity 
> all the parts created according to 3 XOP's Processing Model (see 3.1 
> Creating XOP Packages), and MUST be used in a manner that provides a 
> means of designating a distinguished root part."
> 
> We hope this edit is satisfactory.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michael Mahan
> For XMLP Working Group
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x475
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xop10-20040608/
> 
>

Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 14:22:26 UTC