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

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

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:51:17 +0100
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u30xrrycidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:21:45 +0100, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

> 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.)

FWIW, I think the constraints are equivalent to those in HTML5 on <link  

>> 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.


Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 22:52:11 UTC

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