Re: Transition Request: PER Request for XML 1.0 5th Edition

Jules Clement-Ripoche a écrit :
> I've installed and checked your document in it's final location.
> It appear to me that some of the namespaces doesn't seems to be valid:
> http://www.textuality.com/boilerplate/OpenHatch.xml (2 occurrences)
>     -> 404 (Not Found)
> http://www.xml.com/iso/isolat2-xml.entities (1 occurrence)
>     -> 404 (Not Found)

These are not namespace names but just semi-random URLs appearing in 
examples in the spec (see end of sec. 4.1 and end of 4.2.2.)


> Also, the pubrules[1] complain on something in the SOTD about the IPP, 
> so I'm not sure the text here is correct.

The text is identical to that in the last Rec (August 2006), so 
hopefully it will do here again.  I'll let others more knowledgeable 
than me in these matters say the final word.


> Finally I suggest to replace the text "W3C Proposed Edited 
> Recommendation as of 18 January 2008 but tentatively targeted for 
> publication on 05 February 2008" on top, by simply "W3C Proposed Edited 
> Recommendation 05 February 2008".

Yes, that was the plan ;-)

-- 
François


> 
> Could you please have a quick look at this?
> Thank you!
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.w3.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Ftidy-if%3FdocAddr%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.w3.org%252FTR%252F2008%252FPER-xml-20080205%252F&xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2F08%2Fonline_xslt%2Fxslt%3Fxmlfile%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2F07%2Fpubrules%253Fuimode%253Dchecker_full%2526year%253D2008%2526docstatus%253Dper-tr%2526rectrack%253Don%2526prevrec%253Dnone%2526patpol%253Dw3c%2526normative%253Dyes%2526uri%253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.w3.org%25252FTR%25252F2008%25252FPER-xml-20080205%25252F%2526filterValues%253D%2526nscheckmanual%253D%2526display%253Dall%2526recursive%253Doff%2526recurse_auth%253Don%26xslfile%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2F09%2Fchecker%2Fframe.xsl%26display%3Dall%26recurse_auth%3Don&uimode=checker_full&filterValues=&year=2008&docstatus=per-tr&rectrack=on&prevrec=none&patpol=w3c&normative=yes&doc_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FPER-xml-20080205%2F&recursive=off&nscheckmanual=&display=al
l&r 
> 
> ecurse_auth=on
> 
> Grosso, Paul wrote:
>> As was pointed out to me, this transition request mentions
>> (in its supposed copy of the SOTD) a particular erratum [PE160].  This 
>> terminology reflects what the WG calls "potential errata" until they 
>> are added to the Errata document.
>>
>> As properly reflected in the actual SOTD at
>> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/01/PER-xml-20080205/
>> what should be referenced is:
>>
>>  erratum [E09] [which] relaxes the restrictions on element
>>  and attribute names, thereby providing in XML 1.0 the major
>>  end user benefit currently achievable only by using XML 1.1.
>>
>> and [E09] is a link to http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-4e-errata#E09
>>
>> You can also see section 2.3 Common Syntactic Constructs in
>> the review copy at
>> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/01/PER-xml-20080205/PER-xml-20080205-re
>> view.html#sec-common-syn
>> and note the several changed sections marked [E09] (as well as
>> appendix B which has been deleted and appendix J which has
>> been added) to see the changes related to this erratum.
>>
>> paul
>> [...]
>

Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 15:23:26 UTC