- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:45:20 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: François Yergeau [mailto:francois@yergeau.com] > Sent: Thursday, 2008 January 10 16:30 > To: Grosso, Paul > Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: XML 1.0 PER > > Grosso, Paul a écrit : > >> 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? > > Err, because your other email said so: "But please make a PE > for these > appendix J changes before making these changes to the spec itself." > Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of that? I probably didn't explain what I was thinking well enough. When I said: > If John and Francois agree on these wording changes and no one > else disagrees, I suggest we do them. > > But please make a PE for these appendix J changes before making > these changes to the spec itself. (Let's not worry about countdown > for this PE, but just assume that when we vote to take XML 1.0 5th Ed > to PER, that will be equivalent to approving this PE.) I meant that we should implement these changes (unless you disagree or someone else screams), but also make a PE for them so that we'll have an actual PE number to reference in the review version of the spec and we'll have a real erratum to track this change. That's what I was trying to convey with the parenthetical sentence, but I realize I wasn't clear. What I'd like to have before next Wednesday's telcon is a PER-ready draft including the Appendix J changes (i.e., what is now the PE 164 changes) so that we can vote to take it to PER during next week's telcon. We will consider that vote to imply WG approval of PE 164 so that we can consider PE 164 resolved (along with the rest of the PEs in countdown until Jan 16) so that we will then have no unresolved PEs, and (unless I'm still confused) all PEs *EXCEPT PE 161* will be reflected in XML 1.0 5th Edition. Does that make sense to you and sound like a reasonable plan? paul
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 22:45:50 UTC