- From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 21:00:45 +0200
- To: muraw3c@attglobal.net
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, w3c-xml-linking-ig@w3.org, dan@dankohn.com, simonstl@simonstl.com
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 01:14:37AM +0900, muraw3c@attglobal.net wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I am writing this mail as a co-author of the I-D for XML based media > types. We believe that this I-D is almost ready for Last Call. > Encouraged by the XML Core WG, we plan to go for a draft standard of > IETF. The I-D is currently available at: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-xml-04.txt > > Since this I-D has a media type for external parsed entities, another > media type for external DTD subsets and external parameter entities, > and a naming convention for XML-based media types, we feel that we > should try to publish an RFC soon. > > However, this I-D references to XBase, XPointer, and XLink. In > particular, section 5 "Fragment Identifiers" is strongly related with > XPointer and section 6 "The Base URI" is almost dedicated to XBase. > These specs are working drafts rather than W3C recommendations. We > are not sure if RFCs should reference to working drafts of W3C. > > We are wondering if we should omit references to XBase/XPointer/XLink > as well as sections 5 and 6, or we should wait for a while, if XML > Base and XPointer are expected to become W3C recommendations quite > soon. We would appreciate it very much if the XML Linking WG kindly > gives some advice. Murata, thanks a lot for your query. The XML Linking Working Group met today and discussed the issue. With the current W3C process it is actually difficult to estimate how long the processing to move a W3C Working Draft from Last Call to Recommendation status can take. We also noted that the availablility of the I-D for XML based media type will be useful to advance XPointer to W3C Recommendation status. In order to avoid a loophole in the dependancies, we suggest you publish the RFC, after removing normative references to the XML Base, XPointer, and XLink Working Drafts (which as noted in their Status should not be used normatively). If possible, keeping non-normative references (possibly in prose) to XML Base, XPointer, and XLink would be the preferred option from the XML Linking Working Group. thanks in advance, Daniel XML Linking Working Group co-chair for the XML Linking Working Group P.S: could you use the them "XML Base" instead of "XBase", we were notified that "XBase" is the name of an existing well-known software and we would like to avoid any confusion, thanks -- Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes | Today's Bookmarks : Tel : +33 476 615 257 | 655, avenue de l'Europe | Linux XML libxml WWW Fax : +33 476 615 207 | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Gnome rpm2html rpmfind http://www.w3.org/People/all#veillard%40w3.org | RPM badminton Kaffe
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 15:01:13 UTC