Action to edit to AssocSS [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 July 28]

Simon,

As co-editor of AssocSS, would you be able to accept
the action below?

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, 2010 July 28 11:16
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 July 28


> > 11.  Associating Stylesheets.
> >
> > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss
> >
> > Our latest public draft is at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/04/xml-stylesheet/
> >
> > The transition request for AssocSS is at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Apr/0034
> >
> > We had an unsuccessful transition call last week.  See
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Apr/0057
> >
> > The editors drafted new wording for Section 2 Conformance; see
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/diff.html
> >
> > Paul sent email to Daniel Glazman and TimBL requesting comment at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010May/0012
> > and there has been no response.
> >
> > Liam talked to TimBL July 1 and sent some sketchy email at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0002
> > explaining what we should do next.
> >
> > At our telcon last week, Paul took an action to suggest some
> > change to our latest AssocSS draft, but at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0028
> > he threw in the towel suggesting that we just re-request
> > that we take the latest AssocSS draft to PER.
> >
> 
> We had another discussion.
> 
> Paul's opinions are recorded at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0028
> He did not want to add the suggested words to the spec.
> 
> DV also did not feel we should be adding such words.
> 
> John took the stand that we should just add the words that
> TimBL gave us so that we could get the spec out regardless
> of whether we liked such an addition or not.
> 
> After more discussion, we realized we were not going to
> reach consensus, so the chair called for a roll call vote.
> 
> RESOLVED:  That we add the following paragraph verbatim
> as a second paragraph to the Note in section 2:
> 
>  At the time of edition 1 (1999) the meaning of these
>  p-attributes was not well specified, and at the time
>  of edition 2 (2010) there is low interoperability in
>  the values between implementations; future work may
>  clarify this.
> 
> No: Paul, DV
> Yes: John, Norm, HT (proxy vote by Norm)
> Concur: Liam
> 
> Therefore, the WG AGREEED (voting 4 to 2) to add said paragraph
> verbatim as a second paragraph to the Note in section 2.
> 
> Paul informed the WG that, as PTC/Arbortext AC rep, he would
> be filing an objection to those words in his PER review.
> 
> ACTION to the editors (Simon?):  Update the 20 April 2010
> draft PER of AssocSS as follows:
> 
> 1.  Add the above quoted paragraph verbatim as a second
>     paragraph to the Note in section 2.
> 
> 2.  Change the pub dates (in the subtitle, this version
>     URL [both published and the href], and anywhere else
>     as necessary) to 5 August 2010.
> 
> 3.  Change the end review date in the SotD to 10 September 2010.
> 
> Then regenerate both the HTML and the diff-marked HTML.

Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 16:30:39 UTC