[Bug 1359] please verify references to the various parts of the charmod-specs

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1359


ashok.malhotra@oracle.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Additional Comments From ashok.malhotra@oracle.com  2005-07-22 21:13 -------
On 7/21/2005 the joint WGs accepted Paul Cotton's analysis of this issue in the
(member-only) note
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-query/2005Jul/0053.html and decided
to  make the recommended changes and close the issue.  The text of the note is
below:

ACTION: A-258-03 Paul will draft text that correctly references the charmod
specs as noted in 1359

1359 please verify references to the various parts of the charmod-specs
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1359
"You make several references to the character model specifications.
Please be aware that there are several specifications which have been created
out of one, e.g. Fundamentals, Normalization and Resource Identifiers. Be
careful to point to the right one, e.g. when you are talking about normalization."

1. Functions and Operators Section 7.2.1 Collations

"Thus, the [Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: Fundamentals] recommends
that all strings be subjected to early Unicode normalization and some collations
will raise runtime errors if they encounter strings that are not properly
normalized."

This text references the wrong document and should point to "[Character Model
for the World Wide Web 1.0: Normalization]".  This reference already exists in
the F&O document.

2. Functions and Operators Section 7.4.6 fn:normalize-unicode

"See [Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: Normalization] for a
description of the normalization forms."

This reference is correct.

3. Other Character Model references.

I have checked the other Character Model references in F&O and they appear to be
correct.

/paulc

Received on Friday, 22 July 2005 21:13:31 UTC