This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The XML Core wg emailed in the following comments. Original URI: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Jul/0000 Contents reproduced here, part: the XML Core WG proposes that you redefine the SML XLink Reference Scheme to use XLink 1.1 rather than XLink 1.0. In XLink 1.1, the xlink:type attribute with value "simple" is optional, provided that an xlink:href attribute is present. Moving to XLink 1.1 would require the following editorial actions to your document: 1) Remove item 1a from Section 2. 2) Add a new item 2c to Section 2, thus: c. If an attribute information item whose [local name] is type, whose [namespace name] is http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink is present, its content is the string "simple". 3) Update at least one example to remove the xlink:type attribute. 4) Update the References section to refer to XLink 1.1. 5) Optionally add a claim of XLink 1.1 simple conformance. ("Simple conformance" is a new term, and means that you understand simple links but not extended links.) paul Paul Grosso for the XML Core WG On its telecon of 2009-08-10, the SML working group agreed to make the requested updates.
Made suggested corrections except for #5. The diff is at: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fxlink-note.html%3Frev%3D1.11%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fxlink-note.html%3Frev%3D1.13%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1 Note that this diff shows a few more changes than were actually made.
(In reply to comment #1) I see no problems with the updates. Unless you have an objection Ginny, it would be our normal practice to list you as an editor I think. Please confirm one way or the other if you want that change made (and if you have time before leaving, feel free to actually make it should you wish to be so listed). We will have to update the publication dates eventually, but that is a normal part of the publication process.
Added myself as editor per comment #2.
XML Core has reviewed the draft changes and is satisfied that they address this issue (that was raised on their behalf). See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Sep/0059.html for the actual response.