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 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

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):

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


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:45 UTC