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

Re: Editor's draft for review by 28 June 2007

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:10:29 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bodis6yzu.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

3.6 -- 3.8 are in an odd order, and 3.7 seems to have lost the
definition of 'extension element' which used to be there (parallel to
the definition of 'extension attribute' in 3.6).

3.7 and 3.8 appear to me to contradict each other (extensions are
allowed in subpipes vs. extensions only allowed as children of
p:pipeline(-library), and I can't tell by looking at your relaxng
grammar which you intend.  The difference between being ignored and
being an extension is not at all clear.  Is the following a correct
summary of what's intended:

 1) ignore-prefixes may appear on p:pipeline or p:pipeline-library;
 2) elements in namespaces declared as ignorable (_ignorable
    elements_) may appear only as the children of containers (and
    p:pipeline-library?);
 3) ignorable elements are either recognised by implementations as
    extensions, and interpreted as per the rules in 3.7, or ignored;
 4) prefixed attributes are _all_ ignorable;
 5) ignorable attributes are either recognised by implementations as
    extensions, and interpreted as per the rules in 3.6, or ignored.

If that's what you mean, I don't thing the current prose says so very
clearly at all, sorry. . .

It also might help to clarify that the consequence of this, and of
steps being named by QNames, is that the decision tree for elements in
containers is:

 1) in XProc namespace?
    Check against grammar, interpret per spec.
 2) in ignorable namespace?
    2a) Known extension?
        Process as appropriate.
    2b) Otherwise
        Ignore.
 3) names a declared step type?
    Check against grammar, interpret per spec.
 4) otherwise
    Error.

In particular, is the ordering fo (2) and (3) above correct?  Is this
stated in the spec. anywhere?
- ---------------

The glossary is not in alphabetical order????

- ---------------

Your relaxng grammar still treats stuff in the XHTML ns specially, but
I think we abandoned that. . .

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, 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 spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGi6pVkjnJixAXWBoRAnNqAJ9WDGKdAsZfjO8yVJLraVc+/IR++QCfZgSf
RdXv2CZwzW3G3kmp1imfcCo=
=gqQo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 14:10:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:53 GMT