- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:22:28 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
To close this loop, I raised two points, one of which John had already anticipated and another of which requires no action as detailed below. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul > Sent: Wednesday, 2006 February 22 16:47 > To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > Subject: Paul's review of John and Henry's 2119-ification > > > > ACTION to Henry [due Feb 22]: Review the MAYs again and > > > create a marked up version with changes. > > > > Henry produce a version at > > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml > > > > Norm looked at it and approved it. > > > > ACTION to John, Paul: Review what Henry did. > > I'm no expert in this 2119-ification, but I noted > two places where the suggested change wasn't of > obvious need to me. > > In the third to last paragraph of > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml#sec-nor malization > -checking > it says: > XML applications ... SHOULDshould ensure that the > output is fully normalized; > > This draft is changing SHOULD to should. > > *** Oh, nevermind, I just realized this is one of > the cases John also reversed on, so it seems we > agree this should go back to SHOULD. So we all agree this should go back to SHOULD. > > In the penultimate paragraph of > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml#sec-ext ernal-ent > where there is the defn of public identifier, we have: > An XML processor ... MAYmay use any combination of the > public and system identifiers .... > > The draft is changing MAY to may. Is this because > the statement isn't constraining anything, but rather > is just saying that what a processor might end up doing? > I guess I'd like to be sure I understand why this > shouldn't be a 2119 SHOULD. John answered in private email explaining what I suspected above, so I'm fine with the way this is now. No further action needed here. paul
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 00:21:10 UTC