- From: Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:49:34 -0400
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
- Cc: "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF66521B2E.F6FE0A84-ON8525758A.006331CE-8525758A.006CD679@ca.ibm.com>
Henry, > Ginny: Sandy pointed out that the namespace is the same for 4th and 5th eds. > Henry: Sandy found a bug. An erratum has been issued to fix that. Given that we decided to require "4th edition or above", this issue may not be very important, but I still want to understand it a little better. I think E17 [1] is the erratum Henry is referring to. Is it considered part of Namespace 2nd Edition? If not, then E17 isn't normative, and the mismatch between XML 5E and NS 2E still exists. And if E17 is considered as part of NS 2E, then following the same logic, wouldn't E9 [2] be considered as part of XML 4th edition, which makes 4E == 5E? This can only be explained if there is a difference between the status of E9 in XML 4E and that of E17 in NS 2E. What am I missing? [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/xml-names-errata#NE17 [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-4e-errata#E09 Thanks, Sandy Gao XML Technologies, IBM Canada Editor, W3C XML Schema WG Member, W3C SML WG (1-905) 413-3255 T/L 313-3255 Len Charest <Len.Charest@micr osoft.com> To Sent by: "public-sml@w3.org" public-sml-reques <public-sml@w3.org> t@w3.org cc Subject 2009-03-31 12:18 [w3c sml] [minutes] 2009-03-30 SML PM Telecon Minutes attached. -Len[attachment "20090330-sml-minutes.html" deleted by Sandy Gao/Toronto/IBM]
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic16360.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 19:49:36 UTC