FW: [webreq #2876] RE: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11"

http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/ has had a reference to XLink 1.1 added.

paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandre Bertails via RT [mailto:webreq@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 2010 September 14 11:59
To: Grosso, Paul
Subject: [webreq #2876] RE: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11" 

Hi Paul,

On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 16:58 -0400, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> 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.

I made the modification you asked for.

Regards,

Alexandre.

> 
> 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
> > 
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > paul
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, 2010 August 25 12:07
> > >> To: Grosso, Paul
> > >> Subject: Re: short name "xlink" should point to "xlink11"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 25 Aug 2010, at 11:58 AM, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Ian,
> > >>>
> > >>> The WG has not made any decision on this matter yet, but
> > >>> for background purposes, I've been asked to ask you about
> > >>> the possibilities of editing XLink 1.0 in place to make
> > >>> some mention of 1.1 so that a reader would at least be
> > >>> aware of the existence of XLink 1.1.
> > >>>
> > >>> We realize we could plan to issue an XLink 1.0 PER just
> > >>> to make this change, but that seemed a little excessive
> > >>> if there were a simpler path.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, I think we can edit it in place with a status update. Example:
> > >>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/

> > >>
> > >> Notes on this:
> > >>
> > >>  1) We have not documented this widely. We are getting more
> > >> experience with it.
> > >>  2) It was our intention in the site redesign to provide some
> > >> (minimal) status updates in place, so I believe we have license and
> > >> support for this. We just need to find the right approach.
> > >>
> > >> Feel free to show the WG the above OWL link and see whether they
> > want
> > >> to request something like that of the webmaster.
> > >>
> > >>  _ Ian
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 17:15:19 UTC