Issure rec42 closed [was: XOP, MTOM and RRSHB editorial issues]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Hervé Ruellan wrote:

Dear Hervé,

The XMLP WG decided to close issue rec42 with the following resolution:

> Here is the list of issues with proposed solutions.
>
> 1. Spurious '>'
> ---------------
> In the xop prefix notes table cell, in 1.3 Notational Conventions, there are 
> several '>' characters that should not be there.
>
> Solution:
> Remove those characters.

Done (in fact it was an artefact of spec generation)

> 2. xmlmime URI in XOP
> ---------------------
> The Describing Media Content of Binary Data in XML document is now published 
> as a WG Note. We should update the XOP recommendation accordingly.
>
> Solution:
> Replace xmlmime by xmime (9 occurences).
> Replace http://www.w3.org/2004/11/xmlmime by 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/05/xmlmime (3 occurences).
> Remove the Editorial note in 1.3
> Update the reference in B.1 Normative References.

Done, see edcopy [4] and errata [5].


> 3. xmlmime URI in RRSHB
> ---------------------
> The Describing Media Content of Binary Data in XML document is now published 
> as a WG Note. We should update the RRSHB recommendation accordingly.
>
> Solution:
> Replace xmlmime by xmime (6 occurences).
> Replace http://www.w3.org/2004/11/xmlmime by 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/05/xmlmime (3 occurences).
> Update the reference in A References.

Done, see edcopy [6] and errata [7].

> 4. Schema for http://www.w3.org/2004/08/representation
> ------------------------------------------------------
> In 1.1 Notational Conventions, the description of the rep prefix refers to 
> the schema document by naming the link TBD. Moreover, the document linked is 
> not a schema document.
>
> Solution:
> Change TBD to http://www.w3.org/2004/08/representation
> Change the document to be the actual schema (do we ever write this schema?).

Done, see edcopy. Link at http://www.w3.org/2004/08/representation points 
to the corrected schema.

> 5. Normative schema for RRSHB
> -----------------------------
> In both MTOM 1.1 Notational Conventions and RRSHB [3] 1.1 Notational 
> Conventions, we speak of the *normative* schema for RRSHB. Was it really our 
> intention? From my understanding, the group position was that defining in two 
> normative way the same thing was dangerous and that having informative schema 
> was better.
>
> Solution:
> Declare the RRSHB schema to be non-normative.

The WG decided to leave the current text as-is, ie: felt that it was not 
needed to state that the specification takes precedence over the schema.

If this resolution is not satisfying, please let the WG know.

Thanks,

> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xop10/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-mtom/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-rep/

[4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/06/Attachments/XOP.html
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/xop10-errata
[6] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/06/Attachments/Representation.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/soap12-rep-errata

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 17:10:42 UTC