Re: XML 1.0 PER

Grosso, Paul a écrit :
> 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.

OK, I completely misunderstood.

But for tracking purposes PE164 is not very good.  The new Appendix J is 
introduced by PE160, which is not yet published as an erratum.  I think 
I should simply modify PE160 to do what we (now) want.  I will keep 
PE164 to track the changes to the Unicode references.

The redlining in PE164 now shows the changes between App. J and its 
source in XML 1.1.  This might be useful for review, so I'll keep it 
there for a little while for the group's benefit.

> 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.

Sounds like a plan.

-- 
François

Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 04:36:54 UTC