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

Re: Remarques on W3C Editor's Draft 13 November 2007

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:43:51 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0711191243r4f994766p9f4263663b2a76d3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Some more
== Typos ==

s/How a sequence of documents is represented in a p:log
implementation-defined/How a sequence of documents is represented in a
p:log is implementation-defined/
== Phrasing ==
Please precise that it is a special case
s/Figure 4, "A compound step" illustrates symbolically a compound step
with one output/Figure 4, "A compound step" illustrates symbolically a
compound step with one output and one subpipeline/
Please do not preempt the future of XML Schema
s/As per [W3C XML Schema: Part 2] or its successor(s),/As per [W3C XML
Schema: Part 2],/
== Steps ==
=== p:error ===
I'm still concerned by the fact that p:error could not generate a
c:error with all its attributes defined in 4.6.1.2 c:error
May be we should whether remove some attributes from c:error or add
some option to p:error of both
=== p:hash ===
what's the meaning of the option "value" ?
More than that, I strongly concerned by the fact that the hash value
of an XML Infoset has never been defined (and by the way it would
depend on serialisation option)
In such a case, I think we should narrow the use to content of
attribute or to string() value

=== p:uuid ===
Same concern as above
and in addition, not clear how it would (when the definition would be
complete) from p:label-elements

==Ghosts==
p:validate-xml-schema is still used in examples and even in Figure 1


On Nov 19, 2007 7:43 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | == Aknowledgment ==
> | I remember a telcon where Murray was asking for an aknowledgment section
> | Is it planned to do it or not ?
>
> It was fashionable for a while, but seems uncommon these days. I
> thought we decided not to, but I don't feel strongly about it.

A quick research show that almost all specs have an Acknowledgements
section of the type
[[
This document is the work of the W3C XXXX Working Group.

Members of the Working Group are (at the time of writing, and by
alphabetical order):
xxx
ttt
yyy
]]

When you say "uncommon", which spec are you pointing ?

Mohamed

-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Monday, 19 November 2007 20:44:36 GMT

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