W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > May 2007

Re: xprox specification

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 08:47:44 -0400
To: Yves Bekkers <yves.bekkers@irisa.fr>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org, Henry Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <87bqgewdfz.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Yves Bekkers <yves.bekkers@irisa.fr> was heard to say:
| 1) there are errors in example 1 and 2 of the specification :
|   the examples don't conform to xproc's DTD or XML-Schema
|   the element <validate-xml-schema> should probably be
| <xml-schema-validate>
|   otherwise the DTD and the schema are to be changed accordingly

The DTD and Schema need to be changed.

|  2) Is it on purpose that in xproc's DTD and in xproc's XML-Schema
| atomicSteps don't have <output> elements in there content or is this
| an error ?

It's intentional. The RELAX NG Grammar is incorrect on this point. Users
may not specify the p:output of an atomic step.

|   3) I tried to read the provided xproc's XML-Schema it turns out that
| it is not a correct schema.
| I think it should contain the two following namespace declarations in
| the root element of the schema :
| xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/2007/03/xproc"
| xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"

I see both of those declarations in the schema.

|  4)  xproc's XML-Schema is not self contained as it is refencing
| xml:base and xml:id attributes :
| I downloaded xml.xsd from "http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd" and added
| in  xproc's XML-Schema the following declaration
| <import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
| schemaLocation="xml.xsd"/>
| or if you are on the web
| <import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
| schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd"/>
| if this is correct, which I think, you should probably advertise the
| reader how to make the schema selfcontained

I'll let Henry address that point; I don't recall what the current
best practice is with respect to the XML namespace in XSD files.

|  5) there seems to have a problem with the element appearing in the
| atomicStep subtitution group :
| as the element atomicStep is abstract all the elements in the
| subtitution group have the same type so they are abstract,
| hence they cannot by used in pipelines !

I'm going to leave that one to Henry too.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | You look wise. Pray correct that
http://nwalsh.com/            | error.--Charles Lamb

Received on Monday, 21 May 2007 12:52:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:24 UTC