- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:00:48 +0000 (GMT)
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> Here is my first draft PER requestion for XML Base Second Edition. I have updated the version at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/Overview.html to be closer to publication-ready. I removed the "what we plan to do" section and added a "changes since the first edition" appendix. > Also note the URLs of things I used in > this draft as marked by ***. The file at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/Overview.html > should be the non-diff-markup one, and the diff-markup one > should be at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/xmlbase-review.html > or some such. I used "Overview-review.html" but I can change that if appropriate. > Also take note of the text I suggest for the > Status section below, though modify as you see fit and/or > as dictated by pubrules. I started on it before reading your mail, so I will reconsider it tomorrow. > Note that I opted to continue > to refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/06/xmlbase-errata for > ongoing XML Base errata. I'm not sure why we would have a link to errata in a PER. Obviously we will need one in the Edited Recommendation but no-one should be attempting to apply new errata to a PER. > Finally, I didn't mention anything about known implementations > or test suites, as I wasn't sure what to say here. Ideas welcome. It's hard to test XML Base, since there are no standard APIs for it that I know of. And applications that use XML Base won't resolve the escaped / unescaped issue. You could see what XSLT2's function returns, but that is a rather limited test. -- Richard
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 17:59:56 UTC