RE: Namespaces 1.1 Last Call -- I18N WG comments

[This response is informal and may not represent the views of 
the I18N WG/IG]

I have two concerns:

1.  Some of our (important) comments are not mentioned.  Their 
    fate is unclear, and I don't think the saying "No news is 
    good news" applies in this case.

2.  No link to a revised draft is provided, so we can't see the 
    new text.

Misha


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: 28 November 2002 18:33
> To: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
> Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Namespaces 1.1 Last Call -- I18N WG comments
> 
> 
> 
> This is a formal response from the XML Core WG to your comments on the
> Namespaces in XML 1.1 last call working draft.
> 
> If we haven't heard from you by the end of Monday December 9th, we
> will assume for the purposes of our planned CR request that you have
> no objection to our resolution.
> 
> Commenter email address: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
> 
> >Subject: Namespaces 1.1 Last Call -- I18N WG comments
> 
> >Section "1 Motivation and Summary"
> >----------------------------------
> >[comments on IRI identity]
> 
> Summary: accepted
> 
> We will add an appendix with plenty of examples to cover the possible
> gotchas you list.
> 
> > Section "2 Declaring Namespaces"
> > --------------------------------
> > 
> > Text:
> > 
> >    Though they are not themselves reserved, it is inadvisable to use
> >    prefixed names whose LocalPart begins with the letters 
> x, m, l, as
> >    these names would be reserved if used without a prefix.
> > 
> > Comments:
> > 
> >    Please add "in any case combination".
> 
> Summary: accepted
> 
> > Section "7 Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)"
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Comments:
> > 
> >    Please align this section with the XML specification, 
> 2nd edition, as
> >    corrected by errata E26:
> >[...]
> >  We think there are other, more serious, problems with this section,
> >  which we'll describe in a separate mail.
> 
> We're not sure what aligning it would amount to; presumably 
> it would be
> more appropriate to align XML 1.x system identifiers with the IRI spec
> when it comes out.
> 
> As to the more serious problems, we have re-written the section as
> described in our earlier message:
> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2002Nov/0009.html

-- Richard Tobin, Namespaces 1.1 editor



-------------------------------------------------------------- --
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 14:01:29 UTC