Re: proposal text for 5741

a.  As stated is a tautology.  Which steps need to remain normative, and 
why, is needed.
b.  Covered by so 
should be fine.
c.  As stated looks recursive.  Best guess is that you mean (wrt Editor's 
draft) 4.3.1 item 2.c, but cannot be sure.  I don't see any obvious 
uri#location-path specificity in there, so I question whether or not I 
guessed right.  The proposed text would have to change again for the 
barenames resolution too, no?

could we get a marked up draft (diff, doc change tracking, whatever)?  I'm 
not good at screen flipping and mental deltas, and we do have tools for 

Best Regards, John

Street address: 2455 South Road, P328 Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787

Kumar Pandit <>
"" <>
Kumar Pandit <>
08/20/2008 01:22 AM
proposal text for 5741

The resolution was to make the relevant steps in “4.3.1 SML URI Reference 
Scheme” non-normative. When I started working on the bug, I realized 3 
a.    we cannot make some of the steps non-normative because they need to 
remain normative.
b.    we had agreed earlier to use the term ‘the applicable URI RFC’ 
instead of ‘RFC 3986’ explicitly for the SML URI scheme. 
c.    Item (c) was based on the earlier format of sml:uri (that is, 
uri#location-path). It needs to change to reflect support for smlxpath1().
I have captured the resultant text in the attached file. Please take a 
look to see if you are ok with it. If so, please reply to this email so 
that I can update the text before Thursday. If you do not you agree, 
please send your suggestions.
 [attachment "5741-proposal.doc" deleted by John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM] 
[attachment "5741-proposal.pdf" deleted by John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM] 

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 14:49:04 UTC