W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > December 2009

[closed] RE: New XProc editor's WG reflects latest proposals

From: Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:54:55 +0200
To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4b2bd043.0a4d5e0a.39ab.300a@mx.google.com>
It is acceptable I suppose... the pipeline may become slightly more verbose
in some instances, but indeed, there are enough utilities to make it
cross-version compatible, when considering p:use-when.

I still think there should be a formal term for these elements (I just hate
referring to them as "non-step elements", and having to explicitly list some
examples to be clear), but not having any features in regards to them is OK.

Vasil Rangelov

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Henry S. Thompson
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 5:58 PM
To: Norman Walsh
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: New XProc editor's WG reflects latest proposals

Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com> writes:
>> On second thought, in addition to that... what happens with unknown
>> (steps or instructions*)? This is still not clear. If I recall correctly,
>> new dynamic error was going to happen. Where's the paragraph about that?
> With the introduction of use-when, the WG backed off making unknown
> elements from the XProc namespace a dynamic error. Given that you have
> to add some sort of conditionality to make things work at all, you can
> use use-when to make a 1.0 processor never see the unknown elements.
>> * By that, I mean p:serialization, p:xpath-context and p:document like
>> elements. Let me note again that (I for one think) these elements deserve
>> formal qualification. I'd even go as far as to suggest a function for
>> detection (especially useful with p:use-when). Say,
>> which would be similar to p:step-available(), only it would also detect
>> "instructions" and "extension instructions". And/or there could be
>> p:instruction-available(), which would only detect "instruction" elements
>> (i.e. not steps). I don't feel strong for the exact term "instructions" -
>> "miscellaneous" is also fine for example, but an existence of such a
>> qualification would still be beneficial.
> It seems to me that testing for the spec version is sufficient.

To expand on this a bit -- the WG discussed this on its call on 3
December [1], and confirmed that it is satisfied that the introduction
of p:use-when makes it unnecessary to introduce additional
p:xxx-available functions.  The WG thought that there were too many
categories, with indistinct and un-intuitive boundaries, which might
be thought to require such a function.  Introducing and documenting
such categories and functions to test them was unlikely to help users.

So, we propose to close this issue without further action -- please
let us know if this is not acceptable.


- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 18:56:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:27 UTC