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

Re: Bad news wrt stylesheet pi in internal subset

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:56:38 +0200
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u1fv0oopidj3kv@pc205.coreteam.oslo.opera.com>
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:39:32 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

>> This is a case I hadn't really considered. I would assume that there
>> are
>> zero or close to zero pages depending on one or the other behavior
>> (since
>> browsers disagree), so we're probably free to define whatever makes
>> most sense.
>
> I disagree.  Process-wise, I do not believe we can render existing
> implementations non-compliant in a change from a 1st Ed to a 2nd Ed.
>
> Also, your talk of browser pages is wrong for two reasons:
>
> 1.  there are lots of pages out there that work with one browser
>     but not another, so your conclusion that there can't be many
>     pages out there like this because they wouldn't work in all
>     browsers does not follow.

Usually, when browsers 2 out of the top 4 browser engines do one thing,  
and the other two do another, it is an indicator that content doesn't rely  
on one or the other behavior. If content did rely on it, the browser  
vendors would have gotten bug reports about sites not working.


> 2.  you're talking about web pages an browsers, but you're
>     forgetting that the whole world is greater than web pages
>     and browsers--there are editors and other things that may
>     process stylesheet PIs.

Yeah. Does non-Web content use xml-stylesheet PIs in the internal subset  
and expect them to work? I realize that it might be hard or impossible to  
research this, so it might be safer to err on the side of keeping the  
first edition behavior.


>> > So if we make the change we were discussing just now on the call, we
>> > will render IE non-conforming.
>>
>> Whichever of the two options we choose, we render two out of four major
>> browser rendering engines non-conforming.
>>
>> Personally, I tend to prefer to say that PIs in the internal subset are
>> not to be interpreted as xml-stylesheet PIs (i.e. what the current
>> draft says), but I don't feel strongly about it.
>
> Personally, if we were writing the first edition, I'd agree,
> but at this time, I feel strongly that we cannot disallow
> them within the internal subset.

Ok.


On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:39:37 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

> And Arbortext also processes xml-stylesheet PIs within
> the internal subset.

Ok, that's good to know.

Do we know about what other implementations do?


> And because the First Edition allowed this behavior, I don't
> believe we can make such a change in a 2nd Edition.
>
> I think we have to allow the PI in the internal subset.
> We can still have a "might ignore if in internal subset"
> sentence if we want.

The first edition says "might ignore if in external subset or parameter  
entity", which follows from non-validating XML processors that opt to not  
process the external subset. I don't think we should allow it to be  
ignored in the internal subset if we want it to be processed.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 16:57:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 October 2009 16:57:16 GMT