DR-08-0012 Namespace Mapping Table v2

[Caroline Arms]

I too believe that WG4 agreed to the change for Strict.  My primary reason for supporting the namespace change now was that there is a real need to be able to version ISO 29500 documents in relation to future versions of the strict format and that delaying the namespace change until all related defects relating to the strict/transitional split were fixed would be even worse.  Indeed, I saw the change functioning as the warning Rick wants to see.

Unlike Jirka's, my view doesn't represent that of a national body, but my hope/assumption is the same; certain other changes need to follow.  I have just been convinced by the several discussions I have been part of that, given the process for SC34 (need to consider and respond to defects individually, time needed for ballots, etc.), we need to get this change into the first batch.  

This may be my last contribution to the discussions for a while.  As my ECMA colleagues know, I am off on a sailing trip.  I look forward to catching up with the progress on my return.

Caroline

Caroline Arms
Library of Congress Contractor
Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/

** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the institution **
>>> Jirka Kosek <jirka at kosek.cz> 05/22/09 9:04 AM >>>
Alex Brown wrote:

> This all sounds great to me. However, I see the Namespace change for S
> as entirely consistent with this plan.

Yes, but my point is that if we say A (change namespace for S) we should
also say B (make another changes mentioned above which will justify
namespace change for S). If we can agree on that we want say A and B but
for procedural reasons we have to split changes to set of small changes
I'm entirely happy with this. But doing only A and then stopping really
doesn't make sense.

> I intend to give a presentation in Copenhagen on this topic, and will
> propose to the group that we need to establish some *principles* on the
> relationship between T and S as a basis for our ongoing decision making.

+1

> I do not believe we should re-visit the Namespace issue. We owe CH a
> response on their defect report, and I believe we owe it to ourselves to
> make a decision and move on -- as issue such as this, we could debate
> for ever.

I'm not in disagreement here. I'm just saying that CZ will support
change in namespace for S only if related changes I have mentioned in
previous email will be likely to accepted.

			Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka at kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------