Attached are my first cut at slides for the upcoming OGF meeting session. Some of it will look "awfully familiar" to most of you. At the end, where 1/2 the time of the session will be spent, is a "Requirements Discussion" as we talked about last week on our conference call. I could really use people's suggestions for slides here, provocative statements to get people to react, etc. I haven't had much time to put into this aspect of the presentation. I've mostly figured we need to probe the issue of what we;ve been calling top-down vs. bottom-up use of XML, but I expect there are more topics that we can dig into. ...mike

Oops, I sent this to the old address yesterday, so am resending to dfdl-wg@ogf.org. -Tom ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Sugden <tom@epcc.ed.ac.uk> Date: Sep 5, 2006 6:42 PM Subject: Partial Review of Scoping Chapter To: dfdl-wg@ggf.org Hi all, Please find attached a version of the core spec with some in-line comments and amendments to Chapter 10 - Scoping Behaviour. I have tried some minor rewriting of parts that confused me, but feel free to discard these if I have got things wrong or failed to clarify matters. Unfortunately I haven't had time to get all the way through. I found that the examples given helped me to understand the scoping rules. However, the consequence of featuring them is that the section has become quite large. In our drive to produce a more manageable specification, perhaps we should consider writing a more concise description of the scoping rules instead, and then referencing a supplementary document containing the current examples? I was curious about how this might look, so I made a quick start: http://www.writely.com/Doc.aspx?id=dc5kwkp4_444fsm9 But I'd like to discuss the matter and decide whether it is appropriate to proceed. On a different subject, I've recently started using Writely (www.writely.com), which is a simple on-line word processor with some really neat collaborative tools. We might consider using this when multiple editors want to work on the same part of the spec concurrently. If anybody would like to edit the above draft, let me know and I can add you as a "document collaborator". Cheers, Tom