- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:27:03 +0200
- To: michael.mahan@nokia.com
- Cc: XMLP Comments <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Mike, I'd suggest a small friendly amendment here: Such packaging mechanisms MUST be able to represent, with full fidelity all the parts created according to 3 XOP's Processing Model (see 3.1 Creating XOP Packages), and MUST be used in a manner that provides a means of designating a distinguished root (main, primary etc.) part. Just added the parenthesized part of the last line to explain better that it need not be called "root" part, but XOP calls it that. 8-) Jacek On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 20:47, michael.mahan@nokia.com wrote: > Jacek, > > You raised an issue[1] regarding XOP[2]. The WG agrees with your > concern regarding XOP consistency when describing XOP packaging > requirements and the notion of a root part. The working group will > change the text in Section 4, paragraph 1 to read: > > "Such packaging mechanisms MUST be able to represent, with full fidelity > all the parts created according to 3 XOP's Processing Model (see 3.1 > Creating XOP Packages), and MUST be used in a manner that provides a > means of designating a distinguished root part." > > We hope this edit is satisfactory. > > Regards > > Michael Mahan > For XMLP Working Group > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x475 > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xop10-20040608/ > >
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 05:43:28 UTC