RE: Proofread of XOP draft

Gudge:  your proposed text is fine with me.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Martin Gudgin" <[email protected]>
05/19/2004 11:36 AM

 
        To:     <[email protected]>
        cc:     <[email protected]>
        Subject:        RE: Proofread of XOP draft


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 19 May 2004 07:42
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Proofread of XOP draft
> 
> Thanks for the quick review.
> 
> Martin Gudgin writes:
> 
<SNIP/>
> > > 
> > > * Section 3.1: Suggest:  "Any other namespace qualified attribute
> > > information items with a [namespace name] different of
> > > "http://www.w3.org/2003/12/xop/include". " -> "Other 
> > > attribute information
> > > items; these MUST have a [namespace name] the value of which 
> > > MUST NOT be
> > > "http://www.w3.org/2003/12/xop/include"."
> > 
> > I think 'Other namespace qualified attribute information items;' as
> > [namespace name] can be present but have no value ( for unqualified
> > attributes ). This is also more consistent with your 
> suggested text for
> > elements above.
> 
> Thank you for clarifying.  I had been unclear on Infoset 
> rules for unqual. 
> attributes and was offline at the time.  So, I think I agree with the 
> spirit of your comment, but am having a bit of trouble figuring out 
> exactly what text you recommend.  How about: ""Other 
> namespace qualified 
> attribute.   Any such element information item MUST have a [namespace 
> name] and that name MUST NOT be 
> "http://www.w3.org/2003/12/xop/include".". 
>  Is that what you were suggesting?

Yes, I'm suggesting "Other namespace qualified attribute information
items;these MUST have a [namespace name] the value of which 
MUST NOT be "http://www.w3.org/2003/12/xop/include".

Cheers

Gudge