Hi, first, thanks for the "dirty work" to all of the editors. Next, my comments on the last issues inlined below: On 3 Jun 2005, at 11:22, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Processor Architectures (Table 4-2 in 4.2.2.1) Should 'x86' really be called 'ia32'? (I don't really care.)
'x86' is no doubt the more common term - to be honest, only a small faint bell is ringing for ia32, and I am really not sure if this term really exists. All tools, programs and descriptions I know (i.e. the GNU tools collection) do all use x86 and ia64 to separate 32 bit and 64 bit architectures.
Resources Element Definition (5.4.1.1) Do we need to say anything about what it means to satisfy the whole set of elements? (I think we just need to say that the Resources element is satisfied when all of its contained resource requirements are satisfied.)
Yes, I would support this logical AND semantics.
Do we need to say anything about what happens when you have both Total and Individual elements? (I think not...)
Well, both have to be satisfied, otherwise the whole Resources element will not be satisfied. So I'd recommend mentioning this.
Source and Target Element Pseudo-Schemas (5.5.6.5 and 5.5.8.5) Should the multiplicity of URI be "1" or "0-1"? Conceivably, people might want to stage to things expressed (using extensibility) as things other than URIs. (I'm inclined to say 0-1, but consistency between spec and schema is much more important.)
I think it should be "1". Although the "U" in URI stands for "Uniform" rather than "Universal", URIs are much more universal than they are commonly perceived. URIs are not limited to the well known things like HTTP or FTP. You can express much more things, especially if one does not associate the path structure with file system path structures (which is the most common mistake people make). To be honest, I can't think of any use case that cannot be expressed using URIs. Do you have some examples? Cheers, Michel