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

Re: standard components edits

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:16:20 -0700
Message-ID: <28d56ece0704130816l5bca8dc7i1c7159ed6c1deb2f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 4/13/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
> | I've made the following edits:
> I've published an updated specification which includes these edits
> at http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html


| * Added secondary port to xslt & xslt2
> I have a *strong* preference for naming the stylesheet input port
> "stylesheet" and not "transform".

I have a strong preference for "transform"... but I'm not going  arm
wrestle you for it.  :)   Anyone else?

| * Add support for non-XML relax syntax
> I propose that we add an optional "p:load-relax-ng" step that takes no
> inputs, a required "uri" option, and outputs a RELAX NG grammar. It
> should be spec'd to say that it can load either the compact syntax or
> the full syntax.
> Otherwise, I think we wind up needing co-constraints on the
> validate-relax-ng step that I'd as soon avoid.

Sounds good to me.  I'll add it to my edits unless someone objects.

| I'm having trouble getting a good copy of the spec produced... stylesheet
> | woes.  Hopefully Norm can update the spec before our call tomorrow.
> Well, not before given my ISP problems, but done now.

...now that I know the "empty div" dirty secret for the TOC, I can do this
myself.  :)

--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 15:20:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:42 UTC