- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:30:13 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 / "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> was heard to say: | I don't think your document accurately reflects the consensus of the TAG on | the id issue. I don't believe I claimed that it did. | There are at least 3 people on the TAG, if not more, that are | actively interested in discussing the id issue. I'm one of them. | I understand your position, | and I understand that you prefixed your message with "some of my thoughts", | but I was hoping you would more describe where the TAG is, that is divided | on the issue and discussing it. At the end of Monday's call, after you'd dropped off, I think, I was asked to post my message with essentially the disclaimer that I provided. I discharged my action item as requested. In any event, I feel very strongly that the subsetting issue and the other issues (like xml:id) *must* be dealt with separately. It would be a procedural disaster, IMHO, to combine them. I am very, very nearly convinced that doing nothing is the wrong answer on the subject of xml:id, but I am absolutely certain that it applies to XML in general and not only some possible subset. Be seeing you, norm - -- Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | It is good to have an end to journey toward; XML Standards Architect | but it is the journey that matters, in the Web Tech. and Standards | end.--Ursula K. Le Guin Sun Microsystems, Inc. | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQE+JtAFOyltUcwYWjsRAkGRAJ0ebICyIpG0oOsRv0F/Cy0FA2MgzQCfWGEz gDta/q9wW8buM2N6GTnwcUw= =l2sy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 10:30:27 UTC