W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2009

AssocSS issues [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 November 18]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:21:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3021178255D@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Please note that I augmented the minutes with some extra comments
to help restart the conversation on AssocSS 2nd Ed.  Please 
continue the email discussion by replying to this email.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 November 18 11:12
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 November 18

> > 11.  Associating Stylesheets.
> >
> > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss

> Paul sent "remaining issues" email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0088
> with the following issues:

> more restrictive location for xml-stylesheet PIs
> ------------------------------------------------
> We probably need to allow, but discourage, x-s PIs in the
> internal and external subsets.
> ACTION to Henry:  Suggest some actual wording.

> constraints on pseudo-attribute values
> --------------------------------------
> Paul is concerned that the document constraints on the values
> of the pseudo-attributes (1) were not what we decided when
> discussing issues earlier and (2) are in some cases more
> restrictive than what the 1st edition requires (even by
> reference to HTML4).
> Henry isn't sure about the whole processor/document dicotomy
> on constraints.  (For the record, Paul didn't expect that
> dicotomy either and thought we'd just stick to constraints
> on processors, but I think I can live with constraints on
> documents as long as we can agree on those constraints.)

> Note on same document reference from the PI
> -------------------------------------------
> The 1st Ed has a note that is no longer in the draft 2nd Ed.
> Paul wondered if we should include it, and Henry did thinks so.

> Acknowledgements
> ----------------
> Paul still hates acknowledgement sections and would like to
> see it deleted.  Simon wants it.  No one else has expressed
> an opinion, and perhaps no one else cares.
> I note that the Editors are listed as Simon and Henry, but
> not James.  It has been customary to include editors of
> previous editions and add names to later editions.  I suggest
> that we put back James' name as the first entry in the list
> of editors.
> Given that there are no Acknowledgements in the 1st Edition,
> I submit that the status quo for this spec is for there to
> be no Acknowledgements section.  Therefore, if no one else
> expresses an opinion, there will be no Acknowledgements.
> If we get a majority of WG members expressing a preference
> for adding an Acknowledgements section, we will do so.
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 17:22:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:40 UTC