- From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:37:06 -0800
- 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 disposed. 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 Michael [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-query-wg/2001Mar/0349.html > -----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