- From: Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:14:22 -0700
- To: Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>, "Lynn, James (HP Software)" <james.lynn@hp.com>, Pratul Dublish <pratul.dublish@microsoft.com>, "Wilson, Kirk D" <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>, <public-sml@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <6290E21D21453A4DAD8B23AC9D62F331055FB256@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.mi>
This is done. I have checked in the necessary changes. From: Kumar Pandit Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:40 PM To: 'Lynn, James (HP Software)'; Pratul Dublish; 'Wilson, Kirk D'; 'public-sml@w3.org' Subject: RE: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission The correct status text is already there in the source XML file. I will generate the html file with the correct text and check it in. From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lynn, James (HP Software) Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:25 AM To: Pratul Dublish; Wilson, Kirk D; public-sml@w3.org Subject: RE: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission I have made the changes to sections 2.2 and 3.2.2. The change to the status was made by Kumar according to the email that John sent out last week, but is not showing up in the build. I have not been able to figure out why. We will get it fixed before submitting. J ________________________________ From: Pratul Dublish [mailto:Pratul.Dublish@microsoft.com] Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 6:10 PM To: Wilson, Kirk D; Lynn, James (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org Subject: RE: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission I agree with Kirk - the status of both specs should be updated, "IT" should be removed from the definition of Model, and an "example under construction" note should be inserted in Section 3.2.2 of SML spec From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wilson, Kirk D Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:32 AM To: Lynn, James (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org Subject: RE: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission I assume July is meant rather than Aug. Here are a couple of comments that I would urge being fixed for FPWD. Didn't we decide to include the Status of this Document sections as drafted in issue 4877? This should replace the Editors' Copy Status statement. (This comment pertains to both documents.) SML document: Section 2.2: In conformity with the decision to remove "IT" from the abstract, it should also be removed from the definition of Model. Section 3.2.2 EPR Scheme. I don't know which is worse: having an example that fails to illustrate what the text says it illustrates or having an example that illustrates its point in an unacceptable way (i.e., by using ReferenceParameters). I actually think the former is worse in this case, which is the current state of the text. I would recommend inserting an Editors' Note before the example to the effect that the example is still "under construction." Kirk Wilson, Ph.D. Research Staff Member CA Labs 603 823-7146 ________________________________ From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lynn, James (HP Software) Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 8:55 AM To: public-sml@w3.org Subject: [w3c sml] SML and SML-IF FPWD Submission Hello all, The editors have completed the First Public Working Draft for both the SML and SML-IF specs and intend to notify the webmaster to publish it on Aug 31; it will take several days from then for it to appear on the W3 site. Please review and notify us of any blocking issues by the end of Aug 30. The URI for the editors' drafts are listed at the top of the SMLWG page: http://www.w3.org/XML/SML/ <http://www.w3.org/XML/SML/> Regards on behalf of the SML Editors, James Lynn, HP Bhalchandra Pandit, Microsoft Corporation Valentina Popescu, IBM Corporation Virginia Smith, HP Bassam Tabbara , Microsoft Corporation Marvin Waschke, CA
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 05:21:30 UTC