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

editorial comments

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:02:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4696A50F.7000707@di.fc.ul.pt>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

New findings:

Appendix A. Only a few steps present a sample usage (e.g., p:error,
p:escape-markup). Should we provide a sample for all of them? (at most,
for coherence purposes)

A.1.4 The last code block (the result document of calling p:error) has
two </err:errors>, the first one should be </err:error>

A.2.5 "The XSL Formatter step receives an XSL FO document and renders
the content." --> into what format? PDF, SVG, PNG... ? Is it
implementation defined, or should we say something about it? If more
than one render format is explicitly allowed, how do we specify it? File 
extension, a "format" option, etc.



A small digest of older findings from threads [1] and [2]:

4.6.1, example 8, s/c:error/err:error

A.1.4, should we state that the code option of p:error should be a
QName, in consonance with err:error/@code defined in F.2 ?

A.2.2 has a @@cite (my guess a forgotten to be cited reference), and the
step doesn't state explicitly if it accepts RNG schemas in XML or
compact formats.

E, the language summary doesn't contain the optional steps, but contains
their vocabulary (e.g., c:http-request).

F, 2nd paragraph, s/#error/'error'

F.1, s/error*/err:error*




[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0058.html
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0095.html


Cheers,
Rui
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 22:03:18 GMT

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