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

On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 10:20 -0500, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> Hi Jules,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jules Clement-Ripoche [mailto:jules@w3.org] 
> > Sent: Monday, 2008 January 28 9:03
> > To: Grosso, Paul
> > Cc: timbl@w3.org; steve@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; 
> > webreq@w3.org; chairs@w3.org; w3t-comm@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Transition Request: PER Request for XML 1.0 5th Edition
> > 
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > 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:
> 
> I don't think you mean namespaces, but just URI references.
> 
> > 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)
> 
> Either the document editor (Francois) or I will look into these.
> 
> > 
> > Also, the pubrules[1] complain on something in the SOTD about 
> > the IPP, so I'm not sure the text here is correct.
> 
> I have completely given up trying to figure out IPP for
> these older specs.  I just wait for Ian to give us whatever
> magic incantation he wants us to put in there (which changes
> every time we issue a new edition).
> 
> Ian?

Part of the problem is that I forget each time!

Looking at the previous status sections, there's nothing clear about
the patent policy.

Pubrules says this is the right text:

 "This document is governed by the 24 January 2002 CPP as amended by the
W3C Patent Policy Transition Procedure. W3C maintains a public list of
any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the
group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An
individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual
believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in
accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

However, that's a stronger statement than what we find in XML 1.0 4E,
which does not include the first sentence.

The transition procedure [1] says:

 "Proposed Edited Recommendations derived from a Recommendation not
developed under the W3C Patent Policy, will be governed by the CPP."

That suggests that the paragraph (including the first sentence) that
pubrules suggests is correct.

I just looked back at the XML 1.0 3E and 4E publication requests and
don't see any discussion of the patent policy boilerplate text.

I propose, in the interest of stability, that we use exactly the
same patent policy boilerplate as in XML 1.0 4E (even though I think
the pubrules checker is correct to suggest adding the first sentence).

Any thoughts?

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-pp-transition#switch

> > 
> > 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, of course, we will do that before we issue a publications
> request.  This was only a transitions request, not a pub request,
> so the document is not in its completely final form.
> 
> We will have all these issues addressed before we make the
> publications request for this PER.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> paul
> 
> > 
> > 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%25
> > 2Fwww.w3.org%252FTR%252F2008%252FPER-xml-20080205%252F&xslfile
> > =http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2F08%2Fonline_xslt%2Fxslt%3Fxm
> > lfile%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2F07%2Fpubrules%253Fuim
> > ode%253Dchecker_full%2526year%253D2008%2526docstatus%253Dper-t
> > r%2526rectrack%253Don%2526prevrec%253Dnone%2526patpol%253Dw3c%
> > 2526normative%253Dyes%2526uri%253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww
> > .w3.org%25252FTR%25252F2008%25252FPER-xml-20080205%25252F%2526
> > filterValues%253D%2526nscheckmanual%253D%2526display%253Dall%2
> > 526recursive%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=&y
> > ear=2008&docstatus=per-tr&rectrack=on&prevrec=none&patpol=w3c&
> > normative=yes&doc_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FPE
> > R-xml-20080205%2F&recursive=off&nscheckmanual=&display=all&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-2
> > 0080205-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
> > > [...]
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jules Clement-Ripoche <jules@w3.org>    World Wide Web Consortium
> > W3C Systems Team - Webmaster            http://www.w3.org/
> > Voice: +1 617 258 8143                  MIT/CSAIL Build. 32-G504
> > 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447