- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:02:48 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Per WG consensus and after an exchange with Ian, I have requested the in-place edited of XLink 1.0 to reference XLink 1.1. Actually, I requested editing of the HTML only. See what I say about the XML below. paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Grosso, Paul > Sent: Friday, 2010 September 10 15:58 > To: webreq@w3.org > Cc: w3c-archive@w3.org; Ian Jacobs; Grosso, Paul > Subject: RE: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11" > > Dear Webreq, > > Per the attached history, I would request that you edit > the XLink 1.0 spec in place to make a reference to the > XLink 1.1 spec. > > Specifically, I would ask that you add the following to > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/Overview.html > immediately following "<h2>W3C Recommendation 27 June 2001</h2>": > > <div id="xlink11_notice" style="border: solid black 1px; > padding: 0.5em; background: #FFB;"> > <p style="margin-top: 0; font-weight: bold;">New Version > Available: XLink 1.1 <span style="padding-left: 2em;"></span> > (Document Status Update, 14 September 2010)</p> > <p style="margin-bottom: 0;">The XML Core Working Group has produced > a W3C Recommendation for a new version of XLink which adds > features to this 2001 version while remaining compatible. > Please see <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/">XLink 1.1</a> > for the latest version.</p> > </div> > > At this point I am not asking for any edits to the Oviewview.xml > because (1) it doesn't work in IE7 as it is now, so I doubt many > people are looking at it, and (2) I'd have to make changes to > the xmlspec.xsl to accommodate it, and I'm not willing to do that > at this time. I will ask the XML Core WG if anyone there cares > enough to design some changes, and if they do, I'll ask you to > make them at that time. > > thanks, > > paul > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, 2010 September 08 21:09 > > To: Grosso, Paul > > Cc: w3c-archive@w3.org > > Subject: Re: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11" > > > > > > On 8 Sep 2010, at 11:05 AM, Grosso, Paul wrote: > > > > > Ian, > > > > > > The XML Core WG is pleased with the kind of thing shown > > > in the OWL document you reference, and we decided during > > > our telcon today that I should ask you to do something > > > similar to the XLink 1.0 spec. > > > > > > I assume the plan would be to edit both the HTML and XML > > > in place to add something to the effect of the following > > > wording, but we're happy to leave the details to you: > > > > > > New Version Available: XLink 1.1 ... > > > > > > The XML Core Working Group has produced a W3C Recommendation > > > for a new version of XLink which adds features to this 2001 > > > version, while remaining compatible. Please see [XLink 1.1] > > > for the latest version. > > > > Yes, that would be the idea. > > > > Please send a formal request to webreq@w3.org to edit the documents > in > > place. The above wording is fine. I'd suggest providing the Webmaster > > with the markup to use. I recommend using the latest version URI for > > [XLink 1.1]. > > > > Feel free to cc me, but I'm going to ask the Webmaster to handle it. > > > > _ Ian > >
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 14:03:59 UTC