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

Re: Where are things ignored

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:51:30 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bzm23upj1.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

ht writes:

> In the RelaxNG grammar as published, in fact _ignorable elements_ are
> only allowed in subpipelines.  In the DTD as published, they are only
> allowed in the prologue of p:pipeline and p:pipeline-library.  I guess
> _neither_ of these is correct, but what _is_ correct?
> Despite the trickiness of defining this, I think it really should be
> "as a child of container elements, or of p:pipeline-library, at _any_
> position".  I'm going to rewrite the DTD and XSDL schema to implement
> this.

Sigh.  Implementing this makes me wonder again what's really right --
if we do what I say above, since an extension element can function
either appear in the prologue or in the subpipeline of containers,
that sort of implies that it can function as a crypto-declaration or
crypto-binding as well as a crypto-step.  If so, why not in the
prologue of atomic steps?  What do we imagine extension elements are
_for_ now that we have a documentation sandbox, anyway?  Do we have
_any_ putative examples or use cases to help with this?

- -- 
 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]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 11:51:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:43 UTC