- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:24:21 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@inf.ed.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, 2006 December 11 10:31 > To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Transition Request: PER Request for XML Base > Second Edition > > > 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"? > > No, it doesn't work to put diffspec documents through xmlspec. > You have to put them through diffspec with the parameter > show.diff.markup set to 0. (Right Norm?) Well, whatever, I think it's a bit more appropriate for the XML to display as the final--rather than the review--version, though I don't feel strongly about it for the PR review. > > > 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? > > The pubrules checker says there has to either be a link to the > implementation report or a statement that the Director's decision did > not involve such a report. OK, I thought there might be something like that. paul
Received on Monday, 11 December 2006 17:24:32 UTC