RE: [w3c sml][4807] Look at sections in section 5 and see if we can make them more clear

I agree with Valentina - this should be moved back to "needsAgreement" and the milestone field cleared, so that we can triage it for a future milestone.  We have more important issues to close that are critical for the 2nd draft.

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Valentina Popescu
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 7:51 AM
To: Kumar Pandit
Cc: Kumar Pandit; public-sml@w3.org; public-sml-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: [w3c sml][4807] Look at sections in section 5 and see if we can make them more clear


One thing that strikes me while reading the defect is that there is not enough description to understand what the problem is. I vaguely recall some discussions during the June f2f meeting around the usage of the SML error output on attributes such as the applicationURI, but none of these things are recorded here so I can't guarantee that this is what this defect refers to.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4807

With the information I have at this time, my view on this defect is that it is not ready for editorial updates. I propose to move it back to needsAgreement and have somebody write down the issues so that we can investigate them.

Thank you,
Valentina Popescu
IBM Toronto Labs
Phone:  (905)413-2412         (tie-line  969)
Fax: (905) 413-4850


Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org

09/13/2007 10:23 PM

To

"public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>

cc

Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>

Subject

[w3c sml][4807] Look at sections in section 5 and see if we can  make them more clear







The section 5 in the title has now become section 6 : "Structured XML Output from Schematron Rules".

I propose that we should remove this section entirely rather than spending time fixing/clarifying it. There are a couple of reasons:
1.       Support for structured xml output is optional. It will be more productive to spend our time on core (non-optional) SML issues. If we have lot of time left after fixing all core issues, we can discuss whether to  bring this back.
2.       It is strange that the SML spec even attempts to define this. This should either be implementation dependent or should be the responsibility of the schematron spec to define.

Please let me know if you disagree.