W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > September 2004

Editorial glitches in XInclude PR

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:44:51 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA204D60027@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Elliotte pointed out a couple of problems in our PR.  I have fixed them
both.

For the second, I added another sentence to the defn of acquired infoset
in 4.2:

"[Definition: xi:include elements in this infoset are recursively
processed to create the acquired infoset. For an intra-document
reference (via xpointer attribute) the source infoset is used as the
acquired infoset.]"

This bakes subresource identification into the process for determining
which items are included, rather than relying on section 4.2.5 and the
implications there to enforce this constraint.  With this definition,
the text in 4.2.5 can be softened a little:

"Intra-document references within xi:include elements must be resolved
against the source infoset. The effect of this is that the order in
which xi:include elements are processed does not affect the result." 

I've replaced "must be" with "are", since the gist is now baked into the
definition and the "must" doesn't add anything.

Happy to back these out of they're controversial, but they seemed
editorial in nature to me.



attached mail follows:



In section 4.1 "the acquited infoset" should be "the acquired infoset"

--
Elliotte Rusty Harold


attached mail follows:




OK. The sentence in 4.5 "Intra-document references within xi:include 
elements must be resolved against the source infoset." means there isn't 
really a problem with same document references as I feared. 
However, that they are not 
treated the same as interdocument references is a little confusing. I 
suggest adding something to section 3.1 about this; e.g. "XPointers that 
point to the current docuemnt refer to the source infoset; all others 
point to the acquired infoset."

Hmm, what happens if a same document reference is made with a URL in an 
href attribute? And does this mean a multi-URL'd document could have 
different results depending on which URL it was accessed from? 

Anyway, the sentence after this is, "The effect of this 
is that the order in which xi:include elements are processed does not 
affect the result." This isn't actually true. Obviously as my test case 
showed the order in which xi:include elements are processed does affect 
the results. This sentecne should be rewritten so that it's clear this 
only applies within one document; e.g. "The effect of this
is that the order in which xi:include elements in the same document  are 
processed does not affect the result."
 
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold     
elharo@metalab.unc.edu    
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 20:45:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:31 GMT