- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:55:00 -0400
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 12:55:06 UTC
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 10:35 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 16:09 -0400, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > ... > > > Make it clear that the specification is not restricted to XML 1.0. For > > XML 1.1 documents, individuals can use the XML Schema as indicated in > > [1]. > > > > Philippe > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xml11schema10-20050511/ > > The DAWG discussed this and how about we add a new paragraph based on > the words you give above to the results spec section 4 XML Schemas: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-XMLres-20050801/#schemas > > For XML 1.1 documents, the method described in > *Processing XML 1.1 documents with XML Schema 1.0 processors* > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xml11schema10-20050511/ > MAY be used. Thank you. > I'm wondering though, how making a REC-track doc point normatively > to a WG Note works? This depends on how comfortable the group feels about normatively referencing a document that did not follow the REC-track. Since the WG Note is not a REc, your paragraph itself could be informative, thus making the referencing to the WG Note informative. Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 12:55:06 UTC