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 link to Translations is pointing to xpath-functions instead of xpath-functions-30 ISO 3166-1 has been updated to ISO 3166-1:2013 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=63545 ISO 10967-1 has been updated to ISO 10967-1:2012 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51317 [[ REC-xml World Wide Web Consortium. Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 Third Edition. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ ]] should be updated to 5th edition [[ Namespaces in XML Namespaces in XML. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/ ]] should be updated to 3rd edition [[ Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: Normalization Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: Normalization, Last Call Working Draft. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-charmod-norm-20040225/ ]] to the last 2012 WD Update reference of ISO 8601: - ISO 8601 to ISO 8601:2004 http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874
The WG reviewed this and agreed in principle that references should be updated. Hoving checked the detail, I believe the following references should not be updated before 3.0 publication: (a) charmod, because this is non-normative, and we refer to a policy on normalization that has changed over subsequent revisions of the document, and the reference would be meaningless if updated. (b) ISO 8601, because we refer to specific sections of the ISO document, and I do not have access to the 2004 draft to check that these references are still valid. The other references have been updated.
(In reply to Michael Kay from comment #1) > The WG reviewed this and agreed in principle that references should be > updated. > > Hoving checked the detail, I believe the following references should not be > updated before 3.0 publication: > > (a) charmod, because this is non-normative, and we refer to a policy on > normalization that has changed over subsequent revisions of the document, > and the reference would be meaningless if updated. OK. Is it possible to add a note in the reference for that purpose ? > > (b) ISO 8601, because we refer to specific sections of the ISO document, and > I do not have access to the 2004 draft to check that these references are > still valid. Here is one for ISO 8601-2004 http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf I think that we should escalled it to W3C Team to ask ISO to give official accesss to spec that are related to our work > > The other references have been updated.