W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: AssocSS issue 15

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:54:13 +0200
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uw53snq2idj3kv@zcorpandell.linkoping.osa>
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:22:26 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
>> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 July 15 11:29
>> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: AssocSS issue 15
>>
>> ht writes:
>>
>> > Further to our discussion on the XML Core WG telcon today, I propose
> a
>> > modification of this, as suggested by Paul:
>> >
>> >      [1] StyleSheetPI ::= '<?xml-stylesheet' PIBody '?>'
>> >                               [XSSC: XML PI]
>> >
>> >      [1a] PIBody      ::= (S PseudoAtt)* S?
>> >
>> >  Somewhere we then have this:
>> >
>> >    [XSSC: a StyleSheetPI *must* be an XML processing instruction
>> >    (ref. REC-xml#NT-PI)]
>>
>> OK, so in the _subsequent_ discussion, we were leaning towards
>> approaching this problem differently, by appeal to contextualisation
>> in terms of where this spec. sits in the picture of XML processor and
>> application provided by the XML spec. itself.
>
> And there was followup email discussing details of the wording.
>
> But back to the actual productions, my understanding is that our
> current plan is to have a production [1] (with only one right hand
> side) and a production [1a] something like what Henry shows above.
>
> However, to respond to Simon's issue about white space, I'm thinking
> we could do something like:
>
>      [1] StyleSheetPI ::= '<?xml-stylesheet' S PIBody '?>'
>
>      [1a] PIBody      ::= PseudoAtt (S PseudoAtt)* S?
>
> This does match a smaller set of PIs than before.  In particular
> <?xml-stylesheet?> used to match production [1] but would no longer
> match my suggested production [1],

This can be solved by using (S PIBody)?

> and <?xml-stylesheet ?> used to
> match production [1] and [1a] as Henry writes above but would no
> longer match my suggestion productions [1] and [1a].

This can be solved by using PseudoAtt? (S PseudoAtt)* S? (as I suggested  
in the earlier email).

> On the other
> hand, neither of those PIs are syntactically valid xml-stylesheet PIs
> anyway because the href pseudo-attribute is #REQUIRED,

It is not per the errata. :-)

> so it doesn't
> bother me that they no longer are matched by productions [1] and [1a].
>
> Henry (and others), what do you think?

I don't understand the usefulness in having a production for the full PI  
as opposed to just the PI's data, since the XML spec gives the production  
for PIs in general, and since xml-stylesheet implementations will likely  
be on a layer above the XML parser and as such will just see the PI's  
target and data and not the source text.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 15:54:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:40 UTC