RE: Taking Associating Stylesheets Second Edition to PER [was: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 June 30]

I'm having a hard time making progress on my action
to come up with a change to our latest AssocSS draft.

At this point, unless someone else in the WG can come up
with wording that the rest of the WG accepts, I suggest
we go back to Tim and ask him to let the draft as is
go to PER.

More below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liam R E Quin [mailto:liam@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 2010 July 01 9:47
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: Norman Walsh; Philipp Hoschka; timbl@w3.org; plh@w3.org; w3t-
> archive@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Taking Associating Stylesheets Second Edition to PER
[was:
> Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 June 30]
> 
> (sorry to be brief, in a rush to get to the train!)
> 
> I met with Tim this morning; he'd like
> 
> Add to the document, e.g. in the Applications para

I'm not sure what the Applications para is, but I'm assuming
it is the text in section 2 under "xml-stylesheet processors"
where we say:

 XML defines an application ....

 . . .

 Note:

 The details of how applications exploit the information
 contained in xml-stylesheet processing instructions are
 out of scope for this document, as they may reasonably
 vary from application to application.

> At the time of edition 1 (1999) the meaning of these p-attributes was
> not well specified, and at the time of edition 2 (2010) there is low
> interoperability in the values between implementations; future work
may
> clarify this.

Given the text I quote above in our Note, I don't understand
what more we have to say in this spec since we've said that
such details are out of scope of this spec.

And it is not clear to me that there is low interoperability.
Simon has said that there are test suites that show fairly
high interoperability (at least, I believe that's what he's said).

Finally, future work on this spec is not expected to clarify
the details we've said are outside the scope of this spec.

So I just don't see what wording to add to our Note that
I've quoted above.

> 
> check with Daniel Glassman.
> 
> If Daniel is OK, the spec can go forward.

While I can't be sure what Daniel will say when asked--assuming
we come up with some wording in the first place--but he has been
asked several times, and each time he wants us to say what it
means for an xml-stylesheet PI when the media pseudo-attribute
is omitted, and we're not going to do that because he wants us
to say what it means for a CSS stylesheet, and that's not all
that this spec is about (and we've already said such details
are outside the scope of this spec).

So I don't think it's likely Daniel will be OK.

Regardless, since when does the W3C PER process allow for
one person's objection to stop something from going forward.

In fact, I didn't think there is anything in the process
that allows for objections before even going to PER.  If
Daniel wants to register an objection, that is supposed to
happen during the PER review.

paul

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 16:34:48 UTC