There have been no substantive changes
to the two specifications since the second LC published on
|
Change to use short namespace, i.e. from http://www.w3.org/2008/09/sml-if to http://www.w3.org/ns/sml-if
for the 3 namespaces defined by these documents. |
|
|
Tweak publication XSLT so lines that overflow the right margin
are wrapped (in the normative schema). |
|
|
Clarify Conformance section for model processors in general. |
|
|
pubrules/editorial changes needed for CR |
|
|
Proposed editorial changes to SML 1.1 LC2 |
Additional lists of bugs in various categories, which are cumulative (not limited to changes since the last transition), are found below.
Bugs opened/endorsed by other working groups
Bugs resulting from review outside the working group
Submitter Not Satisfied – No Appeal
Submitter Not Satisfied – Intends to Appeal
Note: These are all from the first LC drafts
|
title of section 4.2.7, deref() XPath
Extension Function |
|
|
use of sml:acyclic |
|
|
request for additional examples |
Note: These are all from the first LC drafts
|
Relationship between SML model
validity and XSD validity assessment needs to be precisely defined |
|
|
Why is schema-less identification of reference elements
important? |
|
|
How are SML URIs absolutized |
Note: These necessarily include those listed above as being
opened by the XML Schema and XML Query working groups.
For each bug
in the following list, the WG has either made changes to the specifications to
address the reviewer’s comment or has engaged in a dialog with the reviewer and
explained why the change can not be made. In the latter case, the reviewer has
agreed to not pursue the issue any further.
|
Consider using another term for 'URI
scheme' |
|
|
Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink |
|
|
Why are rules allowed on both element declaration and type
definitions |
|
|
Relationship between SML model validity and XSD validity
assessment needs to be precisely defined |
|
|
Why is document defined as a character sequence? |
|
|
The term "containing element" is not clear |
|
|
Discuss the behavior of GET on URI |
|
|
Rename section 4.4.1.1 |
|
|
Confusing section names |
|
|
What does "nested to any depth" mean? |
|
|
Why is NCName optional? |
|
|
xs:import for SML namespace is unnecessary |
|
|
Clarify Appendix C |
|
|
Use consistent form for MIT URI |
|
|
Why is schema-less identification of reference elements
important? |
|
|
How are SML URIs absolutized |
|
|
SML URI seems overconstrained |
|
|
Why does SML require that the target of SMLURI be an XML
element? |
|
|
Reconcile SML URIs with RFC3986 |
|
|
Reconcile SML-IF with RFC 2557 |
|
|
title of section 4.2.7, deref() XPath Extension Function |
|
|
use of sml:acyclic |
|
|
request for additional examples |
While the submitter is not completely satisfied with the negotiated resolution to the following bugs, the submitter is sufficiently satisfied that no formal objection is expected.
|
Why are rules allowed on both element declaration and type definitions The working group concluded that
the facilities coming in XML Schema 1.1 would be insufficient to satisfy the
use cases envisioned for SML, with SML needing a more general and flexible
mechanism. |
|
|
SML should define a Simple XLink Reference Scheme Issues involved are very similar to those for 5562, for similar reasons. |
|
|
SML should define an XHTML href Reference Scheme The WG spent considerable time discussing this bug and reached
the conclusion that a fix will require fundamental changes to the design of
SML and the benefits of defining an
XHTML reference scheme are likely to be very modest. Therefore, the WG
decided to not fix this bug . Comment #3 in the bug
has a detailed analysis of this issue and the rationale for WG’s decision to
not fix this bug. |
|
None |
|