- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:44:14 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
All the pubrules issues are what I'd expect, so it all sounds good--thanks, Richard. When I go to the XML, I get the review version; I guess I was expecting it would be set up to give the "final" version. Is this just due to: <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="diffspec.xsl"?> Shouldn't that be changed to refer to "xmlspec.xsl"? Finally, was there a specific reason you added the paragraph about "no implementation report" (e.g., did pubrules say something about it)? If not, then is there a reason to highlight this in the SOTD? paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@inf.ed.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, 2006 December 11 09:36 > To: Richard Tobin; Philippe Le Hegaret; Grosso, Paul > Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Transition Request: PER Request for XML Base > Second Edition > > The versions at > > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/Overview.html > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/Overview.xml > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/xmlbase-review.html > > are now almost ready to go I think. > > We don't yet have a link to a statement that no implementation report > is required, presumably this will come up on the call. > > The patent paragraph annoys the pubrules checker, as expected. > > The link checker complains because it's not in the right place > yet (the links don't work, and the same-document references are > to a member-only document). > > -- Richard >
Received on Monday, 11 December 2006 15:44:50 UTC