RE: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11"

> -----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, 2010 August 11 10:57
> To: Ian Jacobs
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11"
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Innovimax SARL
> > Sent: Friday, 2010 August 06 13:10
> > To: XML CORE
> > Subject: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11"
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > My understanding is that now that xlink11 is a REC
> www.w3.org/TR/xlink
> > should point to xlink11
> 
> Ian,
> 
> The XML Core WG discussed this during our telcon today,
> and we understand that your position would agree with
> that expressed by Mohamed above, and we understand you
> would be the one to make this happen, therefore we are
> bringing this to your attention.

When Ian wrote back asking if it was okay if it took 
a few days to decide about this, I told him that actually
the WG wasn't universally thrilled with the idea anyway.

His reaction did not match either Henry or my expectations.
The interchange went:

> > In fact, most of us on the WG weren't really thrilled with
> > the suggestion,
> 
> Hmm, then why are we doing it?
> 
> > but Henry explained that this is something
> > you would probably want to do as soon as you noticed--and
> > I remember you doing this with XSL 1.0 and XSL 1.1 over
> > the WG's objection--so I figure it was only proper to let
> > you know about this one.
> 
> I have no urge to do it unless it's useful. Who wants this?
> 
>   _ Ian

So I think that puts it back to us to decide what we want
to ask Ian to do.

paul

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 16:47:27 UTC