- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:43:51 +0100
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Some more == Typos == s/How a sequence of documents is represented in a p:log implementation-defined/How a sequence of documents is represented in a p:log is implementation-defined/ == Phrasing == Please precise that it is a special case s/Figure 4, "A compound step" illustrates symbolically a compound step with one output/Figure 4, "A compound step" illustrates symbolically a compound step with one output and one subpipeline/ Please do not preempt the future of XML Schema s/As per [W3C XML Schema: Part 2] or its successor(s),/As per [W3C XML Schema: Part 2],/ == Steps == === p:error === I'm still concerned by the fact that p:error could not generate a c:error with all its attributes defined in 4.6.1.2 c:error May be we should whether remove some attributes from c:error or add some option to p:error of both === p:hash === what's the meaning of the option "value" ? More than that, I strongly concerned by the fact that the hash value of an XML Infoset has never been defined (and by the way it would depend on serialisation option) In such a case, I think we should narrow the use to content of attribute or to string() value === p:uuid === Same concern as above and in addition, not clear how it would (when the definition would be complete) from p:label-elements ==Ghosts== p:validate-xml-schema is still used in examples and even in Figure 1 On Nov 19, 2007 7:43 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > | == Aknowledgment == > | I remember a telcon where Murray was asking for an aknowledgment section > | Is it planned to do it or not ? > > It was fashionable for a while, but seems uncommon these days. I > thought we decided not to, but I don't feel strongly about it. A quick research show that almost all specs have an Acknowledgements section of the type [[ This document is the work of the W3C XXXX Working Group. Members of the Working Group are (at the time of writing, and by alphabetical order): xxx ttt yyy ]] When you say "uncommon", which spec are you pointing ? Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Monday, 19 November 2007 20:44:36 UTC