Re: Xpointer Questions

  Hi Michael,

 The XML Linking Working Group reviewed your comments [1] on the 
XPointer second Last Call working draft [2]. They were added to
the Issue List as Issue XP110 to XP131 [3].
 We would first like to thank you for a very complete review of
our specification, it took a long time to process them. We considered
a lot of them were of editorial nature, and the Working Group focused
on the technical suggestions you made, letting the editors decides on
points purely editorials.
 The Disposition of Comment for XPointer Second Last Call list [4]
them (17 editorial issue in 2.1 and 24 issues in 2.3). Some of them
were rejected, some were accepted. Basically the idea of splitting the
spec in two part is not feasible at this point, and we were reluctant
to change the terminology or the productions in the spec. There was also
a disagreement on what XPointer means, i.e. the Working Group consider
an XPointer processor one which implements the full specification
(understanding the xpointer and xmlns schemes). But overall a lot of the
changes you suggested were either accepted as is or led to the redesign
or rewording of the related parts of the specifications. We think
your comments will allow to significantly improve the final version of
the XPointer specification !

  Thanks a lot for your feedback, we would appreciate if you could
express if the resolution of those issues fits your expectations.



Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit | Rpmfind RPM search engine

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2001 13:15:20 UTC