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

Some remaining AssocSS issues

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:15:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30211745B4F@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
I'd like to have WG input on the following so that we can
get to the point where we can issue a FPWD of AssocSS 2nd Ed.

So far, the conversation has been between Simon and myself.
I'd like to know that others in the WG have reviewed this
before tomorrow's telcon.

Meanwhile, here are a few questions I'll want the WG to
address before or on tomorrow's telcon.


1.  more restrictive location for xml-stylesheet PIs

> > The first edition of AssocSS says:
> >
> >  The xml-stylesheet processing instruction is allowed only
> >  in the prolog of an XML document. The syntax of XML
> >  constrains where processing instructions are allowed in
> >  the prolog; the xml-stylesheet processing instruction is
> >  allowed anywhere in the prolog that meets these constraints.
> >
> > Our draft 2nd Edition is more restrictive in that we don't
> > consider PIs within the (internal or external subset of the)
> > document type declaration.  We are therefore making some
> > documents conforming to AssocSS 1st Edition non-conforming
> > to the 2nd Edition.  Henry, are you okay with this?


2.  constraints on pseudo-attribute values

> > During our earlier discussions as summarized in our issues doc at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm
> > we had decided not to say anything about values for
pseudo-attributes.
> >
> > I realize that Simon has written all the constraints as constraints
> > on the document, not the processor, so I can live with that if
that's
> > the decision of the WG, but that isn't what we had decided, and we
> > haven't discussed the specifics of the constraints (because we had
> > decided not to put any into the spec).
> >
> > So I'm going to ask for a WG vote on whether we now agree to have
> > all these constraints or not, and if we do agree, then we have to
> > agree on the specifics of what they say.
> >
> > We also need to decide if the document constraints should be MUSTs.
> > Since there were no such constraints in the 1st Edition, MUSTs
> > would make some documents conforming to AssocSS 1st Edition
> > non-conforming to the 2nd Edition.

3.  Note on same document reference from the PI

> > In AssocSS 1st Edition, there is the following note:
> >
> >  NOTE: Since the value of the href attribute is a URI reference,
> >  it may be a relative URI and it may contain a fragment identifier.
> >  In particular the URI reference may contain only a fragment
> >  identifier. Such a URI reference is a reference to a part of
> >  the document containing the xml-stylesheet processing instruction
> >  (see [RFC2396]). The consequence is that the xml-stylesheet
> >  processing instruction allows style sheets to be embedded in
> >  the same document as the xml-stylesheet processing instruction.
> >
> > Do we want to leave it or some version of it in the 2nd Ed?


4.  Acknowlegements

I'm not a fan of Acknowledgements in Recommendations, and I would
prefer not to have this section.


paul
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 14:19:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:41 UTC