Re: XInclude 1.1 draft updated

Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name> writes:
> On 2013-07-24 11:46, Norman Walsh wrote:
[...]
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/07/xinclude-11/
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/07/xinclude-11/diff.html and
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/07/xinclude-11/diff10.html

Refreshed.

> The C5 example has:
>
>  xpointer="xpointer(string-range(chapter/p[1],'Sentence 2')/
>              range-to(string-range(/chapter/p[2]/i,'3.',1,2)))"
>
> The xpointer() scheme is not registered.  At [1], it is listed
> as "being reviewed" and "last updated in 2006" though the spec
> itself, which is just a working draft, is dated 2002 and has
> no pointer to a list of implementations, and I am not aware
> of any implementations.
>
> Do we really want to put an example using this scheme into
> our XInclude 1.1 spec?  (I don't.)

I managed to convince myself that all of the references to the
xpointer() scheme could be removed editorially.

I didn't make a separate diff document to show them, but there
aren't so many diffs that they're hard to find. They're in
sections 4.2, 4.7, and 5.2, and appendix C.5.

I can't think of any to achieve what the C.5 example does with any
other scheme so I deleted it. Examples aren't normative.

<aside>
Putting diff markup on an appendix to remove it leaves a dangling
pointer in the ToC. I improve diff.html by putting diff markup
on the line in the ToC. When we really publish this, C.5 will
go away, C.6 will become C.5, etc. This is a new spec so I don't
think the renumbered appendixes will be a problem.
</aside>

I made two other changes as a result of an offline conversation
with Paul:

I restored change markup around the frigid/fragid correction in
example C.6 and I expanded the note at the end of C.7 to make explicit
that fixup would be necessary if there were IDREFs to the now-replaced
IDs.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com