RE: XLink 1.1 open issues [was: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 April 22]

Other than a couple comments about xsd:NCName, I've seen
no other responses.  I'd like to make some progress in
email on these before our next telcon--especially since
I suggest below that most of these can already be closed
(or shouldn't even be in our DoC).

Henry, perhaps you could weigh in on how to handle some
of these.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 April 22 9:39
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XLink 1.1 open issues [was: Agenda for XML Core WG 
> telcon of 2009 April 22]
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> > Sent: Wednesday, 2009 April 22 9:14
> > To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 April 22
> > 
> > "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> writes:
> > > Norm has prepared a DoC at 
> > > http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/05/xlinklc/
> > >
> > > ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC.
> > 
> > Done.
> 
> Issue 5: migration from ISO usage of xsd for xlink 1999 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> It looks like Henry gave a response.  Do we need any
> other follow-up other than asking the commentor if he
> approves of our resolution?
> 
> Issue 6:  use of xs:NCNAME in non-normative w3c schema of xlink 1.1
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see any such uses in the sample schema any more.
> 
> I do see NCNAME in the RelaxNG schema.  I don't know RelaxNG,
> so I'm just assuming this is okay.
> 
> But in appendix D, I do see 3 uses of {xsd:NCNAME} which
> I wonder about.  Is this a RelaxNG thing, or--if this is
> an XSD thing--should that be {xsd:NCName}?
> 
> Issue 7: XLink 1.1 served with incorrect encoding 
> -------------------------------------------------
> This is not really a comment on the spec.  I'd suggest
> we just delete it from the DoC, though I'm also willing
> just to close it, but then we need to email the commentor
> to ask if they are satified with our resolution.
> 
> Issue 8: XML Schema for XLink 1.1
> ---------------------------------
> This is not really a comment on the spec except to urge
> us to move forward, so I'm not sure how to address this
> at this point.  We can either delete it from the DoC, or
> we can just leave it open as we proceed toward PR, since
> having such a comment open won't cause any problems on
> the transition call.

Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 16:21:08 UTC