RE: [closed] Re: xml:id Last Call comment from i18n

Hello Norm,

The I18N Core WG just agreed unanimously to accept your changes and that we
are satisfied with the resolution.

Many thanks!

Richard.


============
Richard Ishida
W3C

contact info:
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 

W3C Internationalization:
http://www.w3.org/International/ 

Publication blog:
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3t-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3t-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: 03 February 2005 14:19
> To: 'Norman Walsh'; 'Martin Duerst'
> Cc: public-xml-id@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; 
> 'Architecture Domain'
> Subject: RE: [closed] Re: xml:id Last Call comment from i18n
> 
> 
> Hello Norm,
> 
> Thanks from me for fixing so quickly, too.  
> 
> The i18n WG has a meeting today and I expect we will formally 
> confirm our agreement, but from what I've seen from private 
> responses, there is unlikely to an objection to your fix. 
> 
> Someone will send an email as soon as we have formally discussed.
> 
> RI
> 
> 
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> W3C
> 
> contact info:
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 
> 
> W3C Internationalization:
> http://www.w3.org/International/ 
> 
> Publication blog:
> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> > Sent: 03 February 2005 13:48
> > To: Martin Duerst
> > Cc: Richard Ishida; public-xml-id@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; 
> > 'Architecture Domain'
> > Subject: [closed] Re: xml:id Last Call comment from i18n
> > 
> > / Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> was heard to say:
> > | Hello Norm,
> > |
> > | Many thanks for fixing this so quickly.
> > 
> > I am taking this comment as an indication that you are 
> satisfied with 
> > the resolution.
> > 
> > | This brought up a misunderstanding about XML Namespaces 1.1
> > on my side.
> > | I was of the impression that XML Namespaces 1.1 was fixing some 
> > | problems with XML Namespaces independently of XML 
> 1.0/1.1, such as 
> > | officially allowing IRIs in Namespace URIs, and so on.
> > |
> > | Looking at XML Namespaces 1.1, I discovered that it's
> > indeed very easy
> > | to get such an impression. One has to go to Section 7,
> > Conformance of
> > | Documents, to find this stated: "This specification applies
> > to XML 1.1
> > | documents.". (A careful observer may also get a hunch about
> > this from
> > | the examples in section 6.)
> > |
> > | If Namespaces in XML 1.1 ever gets updated, please make
> > sure that such
> > | fundamental dependencies are clearly called out at the very
> > start of
> > | the document (Abstract, Status, Intro,...). Assuming that
> > just because
> > | the numbers are the same, people will naturally understand
> > that these
> > | go together just doesn't work out in the industry we live 
> in, where 
> > | very often dependent products are numbered independently.
> > 
> > Richard has an outstanding action to produce a 2nd edition of 
> > Namespaces in XML, I don't recall off the top of my head if you're 
> > concerns are expected to be addressed in that update or not, but I 
> > expect they are.
> > At least, when that spec surfaces as a WD, that'd be the 
> time to make 
> > suggestions :-)
> > 
> >                                         Be seeing you,
> >                                           norm
> > 
> > --
> > Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, 
> > Inc.
> > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged 
> information.
> > Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
> > prohibited.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by 
> > reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
> > 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 22:09:10 UTC