Re: XInclude DoC + two small editorial changes

On 2013-10-02 08:23, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I updated the XInclude 1.1 DoC; I believe it is now complete:
>
>    http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/05/xinclude-11-lc-doc/Overview

003 in the DoC is the original comment to which the entire 005
thread is a response.  Can you please combine 003 and 005 so
that it is clear that we got only 4 comments, the dispositions
to which were all accepted by the commentors.

Also, can you make the "XInclude 1.1 LC" part of the title
a link to http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-xinclude-11-20130115/
so that it is obvious to what this DoC refers.


>
> In working through them, I was persuaded to make two additional
> editorial changes.

Sounds good to me, thanks.

paul


>
> In the description of fragid in Section 3.1, I added a parenthetical
> reference to RFC 4288. Erik Wilde observed that it would make it
> easier for readers to connect the dots:
>
>    <p>The <att>fragid</att> attribute is a generalization of the
>    <att>xpointer</att> attribute. A <att>fragid</att> may be present
>    regardless of the value of the <att>parse</att> attribute. The
>    interpretation of the value of the attribute depends on the value of
>    <att>parse</att>. For <phrase>XML processing</phrase>, the value is
>    interpreted as an XPointer (see <bibref ref="XPCore"/>); for
>    <phrase>text processing</phrase>, it is interpreted as a <bibref
>    ref="RFC5147"/> fragment identifier. For other values of
>    <att>parse</att>, <phrase diff="add">implementations <termref
>    def="dt-must">should</termref> process fragment identifiers per the
>    relevant media type</phrase>
>       <phrase diff="add">(i.e., media types
>       registered per <bibref ref="RFC4288"/>)</phrase>,
>    but the
>    interpretation <phrase diff="del">is implementation-defined</phrase>
>    <phrase diff="add">is not defined by this
>    specification</phrase>.</p> <p>See <specref
>    ref="xpointer-and-fragid"/> for more information.</p>
>
> In Section 3.2 I made the corresponding change about unprefixed
> attribute names (we made this change in 3.1 earlier but missed it in
> 3.2):
>
>    <p>Attributes <termref def="dt-must">may</termref> be placed on the
>    <code>xi:fallback</code> element. Unprefixed attribute names are
>    reserved for future versions of this specification, and <termref
>    def="dt-must">must</termref> be ignored by XInclude
>      <phrase diff="chg">1.1</phrase>
>    processors.</p>
>
>                                          Be seeing you,
>                                            norm
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 13:51:39 UTC