Re: XLink 1.1: Charmod conformance

/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
| * Norman Walsh wrote:
|>|>|   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/ does not conform to
|>|>| <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/>,
|>|>
|>|>In what way, and how can you tell?
|>|
|>| It does not require content to conform to Charmod as required in section
|>| 2 of charmod 
|>
|>XLink predates the publication of Charmod and it's not clear to me
|>that adding a normative statement about conformance to Charmod is
|>within our charter.
|
| I would appreciate if you could get clarification from some suitable
| entity then, I would assume W3C Management or the Advisory Board can
| provide valuable guidance as to whether W3C Technical Reports should
| conform to W3C's core architectural specifications and how to avoid
| ambiguity in charters relative to this.

Yes. Perhaps when I better understand the issue I'll be able to comment.

|
|>| and C014 is violated due to adopting RFC 3987, for example.
|>
|>Use of IRIs makes a document not conformant with Charmod?
|
| Strange, no?

Sorry, I was unclear. I don't see how use of IRIs makes a document not
conformant with Charmod. You say it does, perhaps I'm just not looking
in the right places, but could you please elaborate?

| A response from the XML Core Working Group to e.g.
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Dec/0061.html would
| be appreciated, btw.

Uhm, that went to www-tag, I don't think it was ever discussed by the
Core WG.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.