I think Glen also raised the following LC issue earlier.
Jean-Jacques.
Forwarded message 2
Hi all!
I note upon looking over the latest draft that although issue 203 [1] has been closed with the proposed text describing the rules about module specifications, there is still a slight problem that I'd like to clean up (after last call - so you can consider this the first item on the LC-feedback queue! :)).
In the "requirements for features" section (3.1.1), we do not actually note that features should be associated with a URI in their specification. I think this would be a good thing to add. It would make it easier for the authors of binding and module specifications to refer to implemented features, and there may well be call to indicate in descriptions or negotiation protocols that a particular feature is used/referenced/required without specifying a particular implementation of that feature. Also, it would make it easier to talk about features with RDF models.
Concrete proposal:
In section 3.1.1 of part 1, move all the other items down, and insert a new item #1:
1. A URI used to refer to the feature.
Thanks,
--Glen
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x203