- 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