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

My final suggestions on how to close each of these issues
is embedded below.  Unless someone has something to say
in email before this week's telcon, I see no reason to
spend time on these during the telcon, so I'll assume my
suggestions are acceptable to all.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Monday, 2009 April 27 11:08
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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?

I suggest Norm asks the commentor if they are happy with
our resolution (saying that, if we hear nothing soon, we'll
assume acceptance).

> > 
> > 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.

No one has given me an answer on this.

Mohamed, Henry, Norm, John, someone who knows RelaxNG,
what is the answer here?

If this is okay, no action is needed.  If it needs to
be corrected, Norm should do so (then see below for
the remainder of the action).

> > 
> > 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}?

I've been told this is a mistake, so Norm should fix this
in the draft and reply to the commentor saying so.

> > 
> > 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.

Just remove this item from the DoC.

> > 
> > 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.
> 

Just remove this item from the DoC.

paul

Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 15:09:00 UTC