This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 5530 - Use consistent form for MIT URI
Summary: Use consistent form for MIT URI
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: SML
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: LC
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: SML Working Group discussion list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: externalComments, resolved, reviewerSatisfied
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-03-04 16:56 UTC by Pratul Dublish
Modified: 2008-05-14 04:48 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Pratul Dublish 2008-03-04 16:56:47 UTC
Minor comment from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Mar/0001.html

Appendix C & D: The MIT URI is repeated in slightly different forms,
but the discussion is in Appendix D, not C. . .  Unless it's part of
the point, the difference should be eliminated (in favour of the
shorter version w/o the xmlns(....), I guess).
Comment 1 Pratul Dublish 2008-03-06 17:02:35 UTC
I don't see any difference besides the use of MAT200 in Appendix D
 #smlxpath1(/u:University/u:Courses/u:Course[u:Name='MAT200'])

Neither appendix uses xmlns(...) - so maybe this comment is about an older version of the spec.

One option is to merge the two appendices since they both use the sml:uri scheme
Comment 2 Kumar Pandit 2008-03-13 19:16:11 UTC
resolution (3/13 conf call): 
The working group needs some clarification about the suggested changes. 

[1]
The LC draft does not use xmlns() in any fragments. 

[2]
It will help if you point out the actual MIT urls that are slightly different and how they may be made similar.

Can you please take a look at the LC draft and see if the samples in that draft already address your concerns?
Comment 3 Kumar Pandit 2008-03-14 06:49:42 UTC
addendum to comment# 2.

---
The SML WG needs clarification on the original question. I'm changing its status accordingly.

The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed.

Please review the current LC text and provide the desired clarification by adding a comment to the issue record. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the relevant text in the LC draft.
Comment 4 Henry S. Thompson 2008-04-18 13:44:21 UTC
I agree that the problem is no longer present in the 3 March draft.  I note however that the normative reference to the xmlns() XPointer scheme is still present in section 10.