W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: XML Infoset Comment Resolution: issue-query-*

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:37:06 -0800
Message-ID: <EC67B042372C27429014D4FB06AC9FAF0247847A@red-msg-29.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org>, "W3C XML Query WG" <w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org>
Dear Arnaud

I sent two set of questions: an official one from the Query WG and a
private one that concerns itself with the inscope namespace property
that I feel is superfluous.

In the first case I have not received any answers or push back, so I
cannot say if I am satisfied since I do not know how they will be

In the second case, I personally still dissent but would accept moving
to CR if the concrete example given in the thread [1] that shows the
XSLT behaviour in dealing with in-scope namespaces. 

BTW, this behaviour has some important side-effects on the XML query
copy semantics that I am not sure the query group really understands.

Best regards


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnaud Le Hors [mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:55 AM
> To: Michael Rys
> Cc: www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org; W3C XML Query WG
> Subject: Re: XML Infoset Comment Resolution: issue-query-*
> Michael,
> from reading this thread it isn't absolutely clear to me that we have
> answered all of your questions to your satisfaction.
> Could you please state whether you (the query WG) agree on 
> the XML Core
> WG moving the XML Infoset spec to CR, or if you want to be recorded as
> dissenting and, if that's the case, on what specific points.
> Thank you.
> -- 
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Co-chair of XML Core WG
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 12:53:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:00 UTC