- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:37:55 -0600
- To: Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
- Cc: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@East.Sun.COM>, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org, w3c-xsl-link-tf@w3.org, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
At 18:10 2000 12 12 +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote: > Hum, right but that's an XPointer issue, under True. > http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/10/xptr-CR-comments.html#N529 > Issue (ranges-again) Actually, #N529 points to Section 2.2 in general, and the "ranges-again" issue--illogically at it appears--is at: http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/10/xptr-CR-comments.html#wg-i18n-escaping11 >I forgot to send a mail about it, sorry, Are you planning to? I think I've made it pretty clear many times over the past several years that I have a problem with XPointer and that I plan to indicate my concern when this spec finally gets to the point that the AC gets to vote on it (much as I suspect that's spitting into the wind), so it's probably going to look odd if you don't send mail asking me if I'm satisfied with this decision, since I am not, and I plan to say so when I send in my vote. paul >Daniel > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:50:41AM -0600, Paul Grosso wrote: >> I thought we had discussed submitting a comment requesting >> that XPointer define a more minimal subset that, among other >> things, did not include range. Did we not submit such a comment? >> >> At 09:25 2000 12 12 -0500, Eve L. Maler wrote: >> >Having personally submitted the comments and then implemented the changes >> >:-), I'm satisfied. If there's anyone else on the TF who is *not* >> >satisfied, please speak up by the end of this week. >> > >> > Eve >> > >> >At 11:40 AM 12/12/00 +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >>In order to formally close the loop to request PR, it would be >> >>nice if you could review the XLink CR Disposition of Comments >> >>items concerning the point raised by the Task Force: >> >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/10/xlink-CR-comments.html#N529 >> >> >> >>I think the XML Linking WG tried to comply as much as possible, >> >>i.e. 2 items were accepted and the two other ones were postponed >> >>for a later revision. >> >>Could you indicate if you accept the Working Group decision on >> >>those issues ? >> >> >> >> thanks in advance, >> >> >> >>Daniel >> >> >> >>P.S.: what is blocking the publication of the "XML Linking and Style" >> >> NOTE ? Do you think you will get the resources to get this out >> >> beginning of January (or earlier ?) >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes | libxml Gnome XML toolkit >> >>Tel : +33 476 615 257 | 655, avenue de l'Europe | http://xmlsoft.org/ >> >>Fax : +33 476 615 207 | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Rpmfind search site >> >> http://www.w3.org/People/all#veillard%40w3.org | http://rpmfind.net/ >> > >> >-- >> >Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 >> >Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ east.sun.com >> > >> > >> > > >-- >Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes | libxml Gnome XML toolkit >Tel : +33 476 615 257 | 655, avenue de l'Europe | http://xmlsoft.org/ >Fax : +33 476 615 207 | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Rpmfind search site > http://www.w3.org/People/all#veillard%40w3.org | http://rpmfind.net/ > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 12:37:29 UTC