RE: Updated finding: QNames in Content

Hi Norm,

All are beancounter comments!

Stuart
--

BeanCounter comments
--------------------

Finding's versioning:

I'm getting confused quite what we are doing about versioning findings and
point to the most recent approved version of a finding when generating
editors drafts of a future (replacement) version of the finding. Taking
whenToUseGet [1] as an example, the record of previous versions calls out
those that got accepted (well only one in that case). But looking across
other findings that we have revised I don't see a consistent approach. 
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030919

Status section:

Doesn't indicate that this version is a work in progress and doesn't command
TAG concensus. 

Doesn't say what has motivated the update or what has changed. You did cover
this in the covering note below.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: 6 January 2004 20:20
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Updated finding: QNames in Content
> 
> 
> Before the winter break (Happy New Year!), I took an action 
> to revise the "Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers 
> in Content" Finding. The editorial draft of my revisions is 
> available now at
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html
>
> I've added some explicit references to C14N, DSig, and other specs that
have experienced 
> difficulties with QNames in content.
>
> I've also made the "Architectural Statement" at the end significantly more
assertive. 
> Several folks expressed concern that I was not making a strong enough case
in the 
> conclusion.
>
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm

Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 12:41:06 UTC