- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:17:32 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> was heard to say:
| CL: Good idea to pick top three issues and get input. XML id,
| XML subsetting good.
I'd be happy to prepare some slides on subsetting.
| [DanCon]
| Orchard hasn't responded in substance, has he? he only objected
| on process grounds. i.e. he hasn't sent his technical
| position/argument, did he?
|
| [Ian]
| DO: I think that there are at least 3 or 4 people who could
| live with xml:id.
| TB: I thought we were trying to write a note for the AC on a
| way to proceed. My sense is that we pretty much agree with NW's
| draft except for the xml:id part.
| PC: I thought I saw public pushback on having profiles at all.
I think there has been some pushback.
| [Ian]
| See also:
| [38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0217.ht
| ml
| TB: Mostly I see questions about SOAP and PIs. We could change
| "I feel strongly that it would be a mistake to introduce a
| single new feature, or a single change of any sort that would
| not be completely compatible with XML 1.1, in the work that
| subsets XML."
| to
| "The question remains open..."
| DC: Seconded.
What question remains open?
| [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0217.html
|
| TB summarizes NW's conclusions.
|
| CL: That would mean that you cannot have xml:id; that's not in
| xml 1.0.
| TB: 1.1 processors would not know what it means, but wouldn't
| have any problems with it.
| SW: I'd like NW to concur with this.
| DC: I'm happy for him to do that after the fact.
| TB: My proposal is to ack that NW feels this way.
| DO: One possibility is to ask the AC what they think; another
| is to hammer this out further.
| TB: I think it's cost effective for us to tell the world that
| we think that there should be an xml 1.1.
Should be a 1.1? That's already in CR. I'm quite confused.
| [Ian]
| Action IJ: Change one sentence, sent to XML Activity Lead, cc
| www-tag.
| DO: I have some concerns about this; seems like we're pulling a
| fast one. I think we could do with more discussion about this.
| Perhaps we could do a straw poll on xml:id.
| TB: Why don't we accept a new issue on xml:id and get the ball
| rolling.
| PC/TB/DO agree.
|
| [DanCon]
| 2nded, to accept an issue on xml:id (in case chair is counting
| toward majority in favor)
|
| [Ian]
| DO: If we treat xml:id as a new issue, then ok to send out.
| Action DO: Raise new issue about xml:id (separate from
| xmlProfiles-29).
| DO: I will raise issue by tomorrow.
| TB PROPOSED: Close this issue with the sending of this letter.
| Resolved: Yes.
Darn, I wish I hadn't missed this meeting. Oh, well, I'll read what IJ
posts/has posted.
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | Don't despair, not even over the fact that
XML Standards Architect | you don't despair.--Kafka
Web Tech. and Standards |
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+OUIMOyltUcwYWjsRAtyyAKCDQwED/4qtA5L3NTh3XoITIYP+EQCgsYiW
GI3mP6ysre6xJ0kKvMxdonY=
=yvlH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 10:17:41 UTC