If we consider it errata, are we allowed to fix it in Appendix A after
the public review but prior to the OASIS-wide vote?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter C Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 9:26 AM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: Dave McAlpin;
Subject: Re: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump
esp. considering it is inconsistant within the same spec, i'd concure
w/drummond, that it is errata.
=peterd
Drummond Reed wrote:
> I realize that Appendix A is normative, but this is simply errata.
>
>
>
> =Drummond
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:44 PM
> To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; ;
>
> Subject: RE: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump
>
>
>
> Are you sure it?s pure errata? I realize it?s easy enough to figure
out
> what was intended, but it looks like a normative change to me.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 5:09 AM
> To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; ;
>
> Subject: RE: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump
>
>
>
> Speaking of erratta, in writing another document that references the
> Syntax spec, I noticed that we forgot to roll one of the final changes
> we made to the ABNF in the main doc into the collected ABNF in
Appendix A.
>
>
>
> It's on line 852/3 it currently says:
>
>
>
> xri-gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "("
> / ")" / "*" / gcs-char
>
>
>
> It should match lines 223/4:
>
>
>
> xri-gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "(" / ")"
> / "*" / "!" / rgcs-char
>
> This is pure erratta, but we need to roll it in too.
>
>
>
> =Drummond
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:47 PM
> To: ;
> Subject: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump
>
>
>
> These don't sound like changes requiring a new draft, but if we do
have
> a new draft, they should get integrated.
>
>
>
> -Gabe
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Jerome Jump [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:51 AM
> To: Wachob, Gabe
> Cc: Chetan Sabnis; Dave McAlpin
> Subject: XRI Resolution V2.0
>
> Gabe,
>
> In reviewing Committee Draft 01, 14 March 2005 of the Extensible
> Resource Identifier (XRI) Resolution V2.0, I came across the
following:
>
>
>
> 1) On line 864: I believe the constructed XRI should be ?xri:
> //@example2?? instead of ?xri://=example2??. This is because the
> external synonym (line 859) contains an ?@?, not an ?=?. Or, change
> line 859 so that it says ?xri://=example2?. In any case, the two
should
> be consistent.
>
> 2) A lot of the XML, while correct, should be reformatted for
> easier reading by a human.
>
>
>
> Other than that, the specs look pretty good.
>
>
>
> -Jerome M. Jump
>
> Epok, Inc
>
>
> --
>
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005
>
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005
