5530 2008-03-04 16:56:47 +0000 Use consistent form for MIT URI 2008-05-14 04:48:35 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core LC PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED externalComments, resolved, reviewerSatisfied P2 normal --- 1 pratul.dublish cmsmcq ht public-sml oldest_to_newest 19278 0 pratul.dublish 2008-03-04 16:56:47 +0000 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). 19318 1 pratul.dublish 2008-03-06 17:02:35 +0000 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 19462 2 kumarp 2008-03-13 19:16:11 +0000 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? 19470 3 kumarp 2008-03-14 06:49:42 +0000 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. 19880 4 ht 2008-04-18 13:44:21 +0000 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.