- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:55:01 -0500
- To: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
These comments are in a publicly accessible web page. http://www.w3.org/1999/03/a.html As Dan says, comments vary from minor to major - I hope they can be distinguished. Excuse me for originally making them member-visible only. Tim (Credit to the w3c web team for the tools for changing access without changing the URI !) > >Return-Path: <connolly@w3.org> > >Message-ID: <36DCEDA1.3BF5@w3.org> > >Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 02:06:57 -0600 > >From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> > >To: w3c-xml-linking-ig@w3.org > >CC: timbl@w3.org, michael@w3.org, swick@w3.org > >Subject: XPointer requirements feedback from Director and Team > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > >Steven, Bill, and everybody, > > > >In preparation for the 12 Mar XML plenary meeting, > >we did a W3C Team review XPointer requirements > >today. We touched on XLink too, but didn't get very far there. > > > >We attempted to capture the results in: > > > >============== > >XML XPointer Requirements > >Version 1.0 > > > >annotated W3C Note 24-Feb-1999 > > > >This Version: > > $Id: a.html,v 1.7 1999/03/02 23:38:24 connolly Exp $ > > http://www.w3.org/1999/03/a.html > >annotates: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-xptr-req-19990224 > > > >Status of this document > > > >This is a member-confidential annotated version of the 24 Feb XPointer > >requirements doc. > > > >Comments by Tim Berners-Lee look like this > >============== > > > >I expect many of the comments can be addressed with > >small clarifications, but some may result from architectural > >differences between what we expected when we chartered > >the group and what the group has come up with since. > >So even though the comments > >are somewhat rough, I hope you agree it's better > >to share them in this form at this time than attempt to polish > >them further. > > > >I hope folks get a chance to chat with TimBL > >in San Jose about architectural issues. > > > >Meanwhile, I think Daniel V. is prepared to follow up in email > >discussion here in the IG. I'm likely to be consumed > >by other stuff at least for a while. > > > >-- > >Dan Connolly > >http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > >phone:+1-512-310-2971 (office, mobile)
Received on Friday, 5 March 1999 16:49:45 UTC