W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: 2E PER question about review scope

From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:10:01 -0800
Message-Id: <8E9F0028F5955844899380433C60E399013E39FB@cscrdemsg001.crdc.kp.org>
To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:00 AM
> To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> Subject: 2E PER question about review scope
> what is the appropriate scope of review and comments on the 
> PER I am particularly interested in datatypes, and was 
> thinking of reviewing using the errata and the new version
> to make comments about the changes beteween the new PER and
> the REC of 2001.
> Is that appropriate?

Yes, if I understand your statement, that is precisely the scope of the review.  Your comments should be limited to the "folding in of the errata" to the specs as a whole.

If you have further comments beyond that, by all means send them to this comments as well...but clearly distinquish them from 2e PER comments by labling them as either potential "errata to 2e" (which would eventually get folded into a 3e) or potential "requirements for v1.1".

Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 14:22:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:02 UTC