- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:55:56 -0600
- To: xml-names-editor@w3.org
The XSL WG has no objections to the XML Core WG's response [1] to the XSL WG's comments on the Namespaces in XML 1.1 Last Call. The minutes of the XSL WG telcon of 2002 Dec 5 [2] include: >3b. XSL WG Comments on Namespace in XML 1.1 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2002Nov/0105.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2002Nov/0109.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2002Nov/0109.html > >KK: Issue on two infosets. They have clarified. > >MHK: It s better for us to have one infoset as union of the two infoset. > >SCA: What s the status? > >PG: Next document is one where we go to CR. I can give you a pointer. > >We want to request CR on 12/10. You can raise an objection which we can highlight or not. If you have objections speak before 12/9. > >http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/12/CR-xml-names11-20021210 > >SCA: I think we will not object but I would reserve the right to object And, in fact, no one objected before the end of Dec 9th. Paul Grosso by request of and in lieu of the XSL WG Chair for the XSL WG [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002Nov/0025 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2002Dec/0018
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 18:56:13 UTC