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

Re: XProc Minutes 12 July 2007

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:27:34 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87tzs3xird.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
|>    Norm: I want to know what stands between us and last call.
|>    ... Please be prepared to enumerate the issues you know of next week.
|
| The things I think still need to be done are:
|
| 1. Specify the base URIs of outputs, and provide some mechanisms for base URI
| access and resolution [1]

Yes, we definitely need to address this.

Perhaps p:add-xml-base-attributes and p:make-uris-absolute are sufficient,
but I wonder if we won't also want a p:base-uri() function.

| 2. Better specification of the environment used to evaluate XPath expressions
| (a) in XProc and (b) passed as arguments to the built-in steps. In particular
| (i) context position and size, (ii) variable bindings (iii) namespace bindings.
|
| 5.7.3 Option and Parameter Namespace Bindings goes part of the way, but doesn't
| describe what happens if the option/parameter gets set from an input document
| (e.g. an attribute value).

I'm working on (i) and (ii). Do you have suggestions for (iii)?

| [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jun/0118.html)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The firmest line that can be drawn upon
http://nwalsh.com/            | the smoothest paper is still jagged
                              | edges if seen through a microscope.
                              | This does not matter until important
                              | deductions are made on the supposition
                              | that there are no jagged edges.--Samuel
                              | Butler (II)

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 13:29:23 GMT

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