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

Re: New "New" draft: 22 Aug 2007

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:13:06 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2642ysa31.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Just three things this time (looking at the p:namespaces section).
|
| First, I don't see it explicitly stated that if the <p:namespaces>
| element hasn't got an element or option attribute on it then the
| namespaces come from the in-scope namespaces on the <p:namespaces>
| element. (Also I think the text and examples are a bit misleading in
| that they lead you to think you have to actually have xmlns:foo
| attributes on the <p:namespaces> element itself, which of course you
| don't: its in-scope namespaces are used, wherever they're actually
| declared.)

Yeah, I think that's been fixed now.

| Second, the paragraph:
|
|   The except-prefixes attribute can be used to exclude one or more
|   namespaces from the set. The value of the except-prefixes attribute is
|   a sequence of tokens, each of which must be the prefix of a namespace.
|   It is a static error (err:XS0005) if any token specified in the prefix
|   list is not the prefix of an in-scope namespace.
|
| I think it needs to be clearer that the except-prefixes attribute
| excludes namespaces from the set of namespaces indicated by the
| <p:namespaces> element. These might be the namespaces in-scope on the
| <p:namespaces> element (if it doesn't have an element or option
| attribute), or they might be namespaces from an option or element as
| selected by the option or element attribute.

Ok, I fixed that too, I think.

| Third, the final paragraph:
|
|   The expression is evaluated in the appropriate context, See Section
|   2.8, “XPath Context”.
|
| would be better placed near to the place where you talk about the
| element attribute.

Ok, I moved it up to both where select= is described and where element=
is describe, since I think it applies to both.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Extinction is an endless crime, quietly
http://nwalsh.com/            | slaughtering all the lives that would
                              | have been.--Captian Sverre (James
                              | Morrow)

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 14:13:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT