- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:27:43 +0100
- To: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: "XML Core WG" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
"Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com> writes: > The XML Core WG has received two replies from a commentor objecting to > our response--see issues xi-2 and xi-12. In each case, the XML Core WG > re-affirmed our original response. I would suggest quoting from our rationale in each case, i.e. for xi-2: "We decided to leave IRI validation up to the implementation. ERH objects to doing so, but Daniel's implementation is a case in point where IRI validation is not feasible." [1] for xi-12 "The WG's understanding of the request from I18N and the TAG in this area leads us to reconfirm our previous decision." > The implementation results are available at (member only): > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/08/xinclude-implementation/report.html I think we need to gloss some of the anomalies in this report, e.g. "skipped" and "unsupported XPointer" in the MT XInclude column. > The above two optional features are considered at-risk. > [@@@ Do we have implementations of these?] > [@@@@ Be explicit about whether we have fulfilled our exit criteria.] We _really_ need a 3rd implementation . . . > Our IPR disclosure page is at > @@@@@ [Henry, what is the correct pointer?] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/xmlcore-IPR-statements (CPP disclosure, as that is what this document was produced under) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Aug/0014.html -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 14:27:48 UTC