W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2005

Re: [Serial] I18N WG last call comments [11] (qt-2004Feb0362-08)

From: Joanne Tong <joannet@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:17:35 -0500
To: duerst@w3.org
Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA6DAC433.6B63E006-ON85256FBD.007BA810-85256FBE.004E84B0@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Martin

Default values are no longer specified in the latest serialization 
specification.  It is now up to the host language specification to 
determine the value of all applicable parameters.  For XSLT 2.0, the 
default value for include-content-type is indeed yes (specified in section 
20 of XSLT 2.0 spec).  XQuery 1.0 does not specify this default because 
the parameter is not applicable to that specification. 

May I ask you to confirm that this response is acceptable to the I18N 
Working Group?

Thanks,

Joanne
[On behalf of the XSL and XML Query Working Groups]


>From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> 
>To: Henry Zongaro <zongaro@ca.ibm.com> 
>Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:47:32 +0900
>
>Hello Henry,
>
>The I18N WG has looked at the response below.
>
>We looked at two documents:
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-20031112/
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-20040723/
>The LC version says 'value is implementation defined'.
>The new WD doesn't even say that (or we haven't found it).
>Your email below is written as if it was 'yes' by default.
>We think that (default 'yes') would be the right thing to do.
>If the spec indeed uses 'yes' as the default, please send
>us a pointer to the place where it does. If not, we would not
>be satisfied with this resolution.
>
>Regards,    Martin.
>
>
>At 23:57 04/09/08, Henry Zongaro wrote:
>  >Martin,
>  >
>  >     In [1], you submitted the following comment on the Last Call
>Working
>  >Draft of XSLT 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 Serialization on behalf of the I18N
>  >Working Group:
>  >
>  ><<
>  >[11] Section 3, 'include-content-type': Why is this parameter needed?
>  >   It seems that it may be better to always include a <meta> element.
>  >   Please remove the parameter or tell us when/why it's necessary to
>  >   not have a <meta> element
>  >>>
>  >
>  >     Thanks to you and the working group for this comment.  The XSL 
and
>  >XML Query Working Groups discussed the comment, and noted that there 
are
>  >many situations in which users have found there to be a need for the
>  >include-content-type parameter.  A user might not want the 
serialization
>  >process to produce a META element because some post-processing phase
>will
>  >be responsible for creating that element or because the sequence that 
is
>  >input to serialization already contains such a META element that the
>user
>  >would like the serialization process to preserve.  Users sometimes 
find
>it
>  >necessary to do this in order to work around bugs in web server
>software.
>  >
>  >     The working group decided that no change to the Serialization 
draft
>  >was necessary.
>  >
>  >     May I ask you to confirm that this response is acceptable to the
>I18N
>  >Working Group?
>  >
>  >Thanks,
>  >
>  >Henry [On behalf of the XSL and XML Query Working Groups]
>  >[1]
> 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2004Feb/0362.html
>  >------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >Henry Zongaro      Xalan development
>  >IBM SWS Toronto Lab   T/L 969-6044;  Phone +1 905 413-6044
>  >mailto:zongaro@ca.ibm.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 14:18:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:37 GMT