RE: [Minutes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting

Well, they might end up being linked in the TAG's mind.  At some point,
hopefully soon, we will end up with a TAG position on issue 32, and that
might end up affecting our thinking on issue 29.  Issue 32 was created so
that issue 29 could get out the door with the current state of consensus
within the TAG on profile/subsetting.  32 doesn't have consensus, so we
decided to "ship" what we had.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Paul Grosso
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:32 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Minutes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting
> At 09:26 2003 02 11 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
> >Paul Grosso wrote:
> >
> >>So I'm wondering if the text or the link is wrong.  As written,
> >>it looks like TB is saying fragmentInXML-28 and xmlIDSemantics-32
> >>are related, but I'm guessing the text is wrong and he means to
> >>be saying that xmlProfiles-29 and xmlIDSemantics-32 are related
> >>(to which I disagree, but I'm more interested in getting the minutes
> >>accurate at this point).
> >
> >What I was saying is that people who are interested in
> solving the ID problem often are motivated by the idea that
> they're also solving the fragment-identifier problem, i.e.
> what does foo#bar mean when foo is served as */xml or */*+xml.
> >
> >I'm not 100% convinced that the issues are the same issue,
> but they're probably not orthogonal and it would be silly to
> focus on the ID problem without thinking about the frag-id
> issues. -Tim
> Then you are, in fact, comparing fragmentInXML-28 and
> xmlIDSemantics-32
> (as opposed to xmlProfiles-29 and xmlIDSemantics-32).  That makes more
> sense to me.
> Given the bad link in the minutes and the mention of xmlProfiles-29
> within this section immediately following these lines, I thought you
> were linking xmlProfiles-29 and xmlIDSemantics-32 to which I would
> take some issue.  Sorry for the confusion.
> paul

Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 13:14:18 UTC