RE: XML 1.0 PER

Thanks, François.

A few comments/questions below (for François, Henry, and the WG).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> François Yergeau
> Sent: Thursday, 2008 January 10 15:41
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XML 1.0 PER
> 
> 
> I just uploaded a set of files for the XML 1.0 5th ed. PER:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/01/PER-xml-20080205/Overview.html
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/01/PER-xml-20080205/PER-xml-20080205.xml
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/01/PER-xml-20080205/PER-xml-20080205-review.html
> 
> This is almost ready to go, with a planned publication date of Feb 5. 

Sounds good to me--Henry, given what all it takes to go to PER,
does this sound like a reasonable expectation for a pub date?

> All errata and PEs except PE164 are incorporated.

Why didn't you incorporate PE164 (the changes to Appendix J)?
Was there a reason, or did you just not get to it yet?
When do you expect to do this?

> 
> It passes HTML and CSS validation, and comes close to passing 
> pubrules, with the following exceptions:
> 
> 1) The subtitle is still (intentionally) wrong, it says "as of 10 
> January 2008 but tentatively targeted for publication on 05 February 
> 2008" instead of just giving the date.  No real problem here.
> 
> 2) The end date of the review period is missing, we still 
> need to decide on this.

Ah yes.  We wanted enough time to allow implementors to
implement this and for anyone who wants to through a fit
to do so.  

A three month period takes us into May.  How does an end
date in mid-May sound?  Should we go longer?
 
> 
> 3) The pubrules checker complains about the patent policy 
> wording, I'm 
> not sure if I set the options wrong or if something is really 
> wrong or if we'll need to explain this away.

Let's not worry about this.  I think XML is so old it doesn't
fit into pubrules, but if I'm wrong, we can let Ian explain.
I refuse to waste my time on such stuff.

> 
> 4) The pubrules checker complains wrongly about some namespace URLs, 
> this will just need to be explained away.

Yep.

> 
> Other than that, we still need to draft an (empty) 
> implementation report 
> and to publish outstanding PEs and fix references to them in 
> the review version before being really ready to go.

I assume you'll do that at some point, correct?

Also, I need to draft a PER transition request, and per the
process doc, we'll need a Transition Meeting with the Director.

We'll probably also need to augment the test suite with a
test for each substantive change we made to this edition
(though this could be done after entering PER).

> 
> BTW there's also a PDF version:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/01/PER-xml-20080205/PER-xml-20080205.pdf
> 
> It is not referenced from the other versions and I don't plan 
> to publish 
> it for the PER, but I'd appreciate if people could take a 
> look and find out if it is good enough to go out with the Rec.

I took a quick look, and it looks okay, but I didn't inspect
it closely or think too hard about it, so I'd be interested
to hear what others think.

paul

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 22:10:41 UTC