- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:13:06 -0500
- To: "public-xml-core-wg" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Philippe Le Hegaret > Sent: Tuesday, 2007 February 13 14:50 > To: Henry S. Thompson > Cc: public-xml-core-wg > Subject: Re: XML resource identifiers - time to rethink? > > On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 15:15 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > Philippe le Hegaret is checking with Ian Jacobs to see > > what our options are if we decided we wanted to rapidly > > publish a definition of XRIs separately, and then put normative > > references to that definition in xml:base 2e and XLink 1.1, > > without resetting their Process state if at all possible. > > Talked to Ian and here is his opinion: don't publish the > definition in a > non-TR document (it's not normative, no guarantees, etc.). His > preference is to duplicate the definition (pointing out in > each one that they'll be kept aligned). I don't see duplicating information as a solution. It still seems easiest and best to me to write an RFC defining the term. It's not a W3C-only term, it's easy to write an RFC, and we often refer normatively to RFCs. paul
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 21:14:30 UTC