W3C

Last Call Disposition of Comments for xml:id

There were 20 (non-spam) comments submitted to the public-xml-id comments list (archive) during the Last Call period or shortly thereafter. A full record of the comments is summarized on the xml:id Issue Status page. The proposed CR draft reflects the resolution of these issues.

Of the comments, 2 remain open and explicitly failed to satisfy the commenter:

1. Effect of normalisation step on the DOM/Infoset
This thread could not be resolved to the satisfaction of the commenter. The XML Core WG stands by the current specification.
2. *Major* problem with xml:id in canonical XML
There's no good answer to this thread. The XML Core WG proposes to address it by adding a non-normative note describing the problem and pursuing a fix to the relevant specification.

The commenters were explicitly satisfied with our resolution of 18 comments.

1. Universal is not universal
This thread is closed.
2. grammatical change in appendix D
This thread is closed.
3. 1. General comments
This thread is closed.
4. 3. Frequency and timing of xml:id processing
This thread is closed.
5. ID assignment and the empty string
This thread is closed.
6. 5. xml:id error processing being a "must"
This thread is closed.
7. 6. Document Conformance
This thread is closed.
8. 7. Suggested test for space normalisation
This thread is closed.
9. 8. CR Exit Criteria
This thread is closed.
10. DTD and Schema Validation Technologies
This thread is closed.
11. TAG Last Call comments on xml:id
This thread is closed.
12. XSL/XQuery comments on xml:id
This thread is closed.
13. [Editorial] xml:id LC - 4 Processing xml:id Attributes
This thread is closed.
14. [Editorial] xml:id LC XMLSpec Markup inappropriate for definition.
This thread is closed.
15. [QA] xml:id LC - Conformance to SpecGL Version Nov 22, 2004
This thread is closed.
16. Test Case with xml-dsig
This thread is closed.
17. [QA Review] xml:id Version 1.0
This thread is closed.
18. xml:id Last Call comment from i18n
This thread is closed.

$Revision: 1.6 $ by $Author: NormanWalsh $