- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:44:45 +0100
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 08:55 -0400, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 10:35 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: ... > > 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. OK, so I'll propose to the WG that I add the words above as an informative note in section 4 and then add a new informative reference to the document to address your issue. Would that satisfy your comment? Thanks Dave
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2005 09:44:53 UTC