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

RE: Latest version of the Infoset

From: John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:18:00 -0800
Message-ID: <7874BFCCD289A645B5CE3935769F0B520C337A@tigger.PureEdge.com>
To: <duerst@w3.org>, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>
Cc: <www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Hi Martin,

I know the status of infoset and I know that the WD publication is the
usual procedure, and said as much in my response to Philippe.  However,
in cases where the changes are substantive (e.g. whole sections were
taken out of the infoset spec), documentation pertaining to who
requested the change and why must be provided, also as a matter of
policy, and a second last call should be issued (for the reasons noted
by Joseph Reagle).

In the particular case of Infoset, it appears that entity reference
markers were removed in order to support XInclude, which in my current
opinion, should not be constructed as it is.  Moreover, regarding the
removal of CDATA section markers, I'm told that I18N said they should be
dumped.  I've asked for clarification because the reason, on the
surface, didn't make sense.  To that end, you are a great guy to give
such clarification...

John Boyer
Senior Product Architect, Software Development
Internet Commerce System (ICS) Team
PureEdge Solutions Inc. 
Trusted Digital Relationships
v: 250-708-8047  f: 250-708-8010
1-888-517-2675   http://www.PureEdge.com <http://www.pureedge.com/>  	

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:55 PM
To: Philippe Le Hegaret; John Boyer
Cc: www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org; w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Latest version of the Infoset

Hello Philippe, John,

It is not true in general, and it is not true in particular for the
Infoset, that going back to working draft means that there is another
last call. An additional working draft is often used to confirm last
call resolutions just before going to CR.

For details, please see http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#status.

Regards,    Martin.

At 16:21 01/03/28 -0500, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>John Boyer wrote:
> > Editors:  Is there some reason why entity ref (and cdata) markers
> > yanked?  I can understand tweaking features in response to a last
> > but it seems uncommon to make such a substantive change without
> > another last call.
>The document is back to working draft so there will be an other last
>in the future.
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 18:18:52 UTC

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