RE: XML Schema WG comments on Functions and Operators

Xan:
Additional comment.  Please review fn:escape-uri carefully.  The Schema
WG recommended that we align with the Linking spec but we pushed back
and argued that our semantics were correct and consistent.  But please
check.

All the best, Ashok

-----Original Message-----
From: Xan Gregg [mailto:xan.gregg@jmp.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 11:50 AM
To: Ashok Malhotra
Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Subject: RE: XML Schema WG comments on Functions and Operators

Ashok,

As part of reviewing the latest F&O draft for the XML Schema WG, I'm  
trying to track the issues previously raised by XML Schema WG.  You  
provided a very useful unofficial response [1] to all of the comments.

Most items had one of the following dispositions:

1. created discussion thread (1.4 strings and URIs, 2.4. Surrogate  
pairs)
2. created a Data Model issue (DM-LC1-0129, DM-LC1-0130, DM-LC1-0131 in

[2])
3. created an F&O issue (LC1-100, LC1-103, LC1-104, LC1-111 in [3])
4. described a completed editorial change

For the items in #1, I don't see them on any recorded issue list.  Is  
there a different issues list I should be reading, besides [2] and [3]?

  And has there been any resolution on the items in #2?  The issues list

just says "Cross-WG discussions are underway" on each of these.

Thanks,

xan

[1]  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Aug/ 
0141.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/2003/05/xpath-datamodel-issues/
[3] http://www.w3.org/XML/2003/05/xpath-functions-issues/

Received on Sunday, 1 February 2004 15:44:49 UTC