- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:48:59 +0100 (BST)
- To: public-xml-core-wg <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Here is a summary of comments so far on the Namespaces PERs, and my recommendations as to what to do about them: (1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2006Jun/0001.html The examples say <?xml version="1.1"?> in both the 1.0 and 1.1 versions. We'll fix the 1.0 version before REC. (2) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2006Jun/0002.html There's a "MUST NOT" that is not marked as a RFC2119 term. We'll fix it before REC. (3) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2006Jun/0003.html This one is mistaken, but leads to a suggestion for an erratum later. (4) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2006Jun/0010.html This one suggests that we should use <dfn> instead of <b> for definitions. It's an xmlspec issue and not one we need fix right now. (5) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2006Jun/0013.html This one concerns the references to the XML specs. We'll update them before going to REC, but should we refer to dated versions or not? -- Richard
Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 11:49:10 UTC