RE: Changes checked in to son-of-3023

Chris,

Have you seen these comments?

Most of the are editorial, and Henry said he was fine with
my suggested additional Note, so let me know if you have any
problems with implementing my suggestions.

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: Monday, 2009 November 09 13:45
> To: Chris Lilley; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Changes checked in to son-of-3023
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Lilley
> > Sent: Friday, 2009 November 06 16:20
> > To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Changes checked in to son-of-3023
> >
> > Hello public-xml-core-wg,
> >
> > Following our productive meeting yesterday, I have edited in the
> > changes we agreed and the result is available at
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html
> >
> > (xml and text versions also available).
> >
> > Please check that the wording in section 5 is as we agreed
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html#frag
> 
> 
> s/fragement/fragment/g in the first para of section 5
> (two occurrences).
> 
> ---
> 
> Though I don't feel strongly about this, the first para
> has two occurrences of "may" that are not 2119 MAYs.
> Since the meaning here is really one of possibility,
> not permission, I suggest changing those two occurrences
> to "can".
> 
> ---
> 
> delete the inappropriate comma in the third sentence
> of the second para.  (See below for a suggested replacement
> for this sentence.)
> 
> ---
> 
> In the last sentence of the 4th para, I'm not sure the
> phrase "such as the xmlns scheme and other schemes" is
> really necessary, but if we are going to mention the
> xmlns scheme, I would thing we should add it to
> Informative references and have a link to the reference.
> (I know I made a previous comment about removing the
> reference from the Normative References.)
> 
> ---
> 
> The second para says that XpointerFramework allows
> "simple names" and the fourth para talks about
> supporting "barenames".  In fact, the term "barename"
> was only used in pre-Rec versions of the spec; the
> current term is "shorthand pointer".  I suggest the
> third sentence of the 2nd para be augmented to read:
> 
>  It allows simple names (called shorthand pointers) as well
>  as more complex constructions based on named schemes.
> 
> and then the reference to "barenames" in the 4th para
> should be changed to "shorthand pointers" (without the
> quotes).
> 
> ---
> 
> With this version, we have gone from disallowing use of
> xpointer schemes besides shorthand pointer and element()
> to allowing anything that matches the framework syntax
> (albeit with a "should not" for unregistered schemes).
> 
> Now that our wording allows use of other xpointer schemes
> besides those that are XPointer W3C Recommendations, I would
> prefer to see a warning about using other xpointer schemes.
> After all, there are tons of "registered" schemes that will
> not be universally supported.  (There are 18 schemes just
> for wsdl in the registry.)
> 
> Therefore, I would like to see a sentence such as the following
> added to paragraph three:
> 
>  Because applications are not required to support schemes other
>  than the 'element' scheme, use of other schemes can reduce
>  universal interoperability; such use SHOULD be carefully
>  considered in each case.
> 
> Or some other such wording.  URI resolution is such an integral
> part of the web, and I don't want people expecting that they can
> use any of the 18 WSDL schemes (or any of the others in the
> registry) with the same expectations of support as using a
> shorthand pointer.
> 
> 
> paul
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 17:23:21 UTC