W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: remove xml-stylesheet appendix?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:55:06 -0500
To: ogbujic@ccf.org
Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1177390506.9528.158.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 09:57 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> I would be against removing it.  Although they are not enforced
> 'formally', xml-stylesheet processing instructions are supported by a
> large number of web agents and XML processors.  In addition, I think it
> is in the interest of GRDDL to be clear about how its use of XML
> pipleines to produce content for machine consumption (faithful
> rendition) differs significantly from the precedent of using XML
> pipelines to produce content for human consumption (the whole content
> versus presentation pattern: docbook -> PDF,HTML, etc..).
> GRDDL aware-agents which piggy-back XML processors may be in for a
> surprise if the underlying XML processor, applies xml-stylesheet
> processing instructions by default (some do).  An explicit health
> warning is prudent, even if we explicitly mark it as informative.

Then the health warning should say that GRDDL-aware agents should
ignore stylesheet PIs, no?

It seems to me that mixing stylesheet PIs and GRDDL links
freely should work fine. I'm not interested to advise
authors to avoid it.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

> I'd prefer clarifying the text rather than deleting it or marking it as
> informative (I assumed that its place in the appendix suggests that is
> informative).  A new first paragraph:
> [[[
> The xml-stylesheet processing instruction[STYPI] is generally deployed
> for automated presentation processing. This type of link is different
> from links to GRDDL transformation algorithms, which are intended to
> facilitate the extraction of RDF as a faithful rendition [#sec_rend] of
> the source.  The former is geared more for human consumption while the
> latter is primarily for machine consumption. 
> Document authors who wish their documents to be unambiguous when used
> with GRDDL should avoid using xml-stylesheet processing instructions as
> their use may interfere with transforms nominated by GRDDL for the
> production of GRDDL results in the same source document.
> ]]]
> The last part of the above was added with language that ended up having
> to contend with statements made in the faithful-infoset sections and the
> new health warnings added about DTD's and entities, so I tried to keep
> the tone consistent.  
> The second paragraph (from the original) is not true as there are at
> least three examples of XSLT processors which support this: 4Suite,
> Saxon, and MSXML (I'm not sure why this did not come to my attention
> before).  
> [[[
> Also, parsing the content of processing instructions is not supported by
> XML tools such as XSLT processors, and grounding processing instructions
> in URI space is not as straightforward as using namespaces with
> attributes.
> ]]]
> I'm not sure can suggest a change for that second part, so my vote is to
> delete it.  Dave's concern seems to be about wandering into
> implementation advice.  I don't think a health warning about possible
> clashing of transform nomination WRT to xml-stylesheet applies, but a
> (false) statement about support of xml-stylesheet along with a critique
> of them doesn't seem very appropriate, in retrospect.  Especially
> considering the language of the failthful-infoset paragraph suggests the
> WG has taken a stance of being silent about XML processors.
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 05:07:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:11 UTC