W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > December 2006

(Standard) Component Library

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:00:44 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0612221400p4069f080qcb4f1c9e603a20a1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "XProc WG" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

== Load ==
I think the story of the load component, which we all agree is the
component behind the <p:document href="..."/>, should be clearer about
its validating status

As the document is at least well formed,
what is the application supposed to do
* when there is a <!DOCTYPE ...>
* when there is <root
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="mySchema.xsd">

We should take care that DTD and XML Schema for PSVI

== Validate ==

The p:validate is referenced in the spec for the moment in example 2
but is not in standard component library
It seems interesting to specify all the way to validate with current
heavily used grammar so as to be interoperable, without mandating to
support them all

The fallback mechanism is highly interesting
Because there is at least 5 kinds of fallback :
a) The processor doesn't not support this kind of language
b) The processor support but file is not accessible
c) The processor support but the model is corrupted
d) The processor support, the model is correct, but the file is not accessible
e) The processor support, the model is correct, but the file doesn't validate

We need to be able to distinguish amongst them

b) and d) need to surround each p:input with try/catch

c) could may be caught by validating the schema itself before (so
p:validate should be able to do that)

a) we need to have a construct for optional construct to detect them
with a simple test. For this, I propose a p:pipeline source and
configuration port stream
which could be used like
<p:parameter name="is-supporting-relax-ng"
filter="/component/p:validate/supported-namespaces/ns =
'http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0'">
  <p:pipe step="p:pipeline" port="configuration"/>
</p:parameter>
[Note that it could be interesting to reserve step that are in the
xproc namespace]

By successive fallback e) should be the fallback of p:validate

== NVDL ==
It is interesting at multiple level to look carefully at NVDL

First, it is in the requirements
Then, with a single document and an NVDL script we could end up with
an undefined number of output from the NVDL perspective (or may be a
fixed number  (depending only on the script) of output sequence)

Mohamed
-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 22:01:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:49 GMT