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: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:36:34 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0711201436w51817da5o52a572928cd92616@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On Nov 20, 2007 5:01 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> | 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],/
>
> You don't want to say "or it's successors"? I suppose it's slightly
> risky...

It's slightly risky to say it or to NOT say it ?

>
> | === 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
>
> How does it not generate all the attributes?
>
> <c:error
>   name? = NCName       ==> name of the p:error step
>   type? = QName        ==> p:error
>   code? = QName        ==> code specified in p:error
>   href? = anyURI       ==> URI of the pipeline that contains the p:error
>   line? = integer      ==> line number of the p:error in the pipeline
>   column? = integer    ==> column number of the p:error in the pipeline
>   offset? = integer>   ==> offset of the p:error in the pipeline
>     (string |          ==> description specified in p:error
>      anyElement)*
> </c:error>

Ok now it's clear that the spec should be clearer on that point :-)


>
> | === p:hash ===
> | what's the meaning of the option "value" ?
>
> That's the value to be hashed.

Ok, I don't think, I understood that. It's now clearer

>
> | === p:uuid ===
>
> I don't understand what you're asking.

Well my point was : why isn't just UUID a possible value of the
"scheme" option in p:label-elements ?

> | When you say "uncommon", which spec are you pointing ?
>
> XDM, XPath 2.0, XML 1.0, XML 1.1, xml:id, XPointer, ...
>
> That said, a little poking on the TR page suggests that they're still pretty
> popular.

I arrived to the same conclusion

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 Tuesday, 20 November 2007 22:36:57 GMT

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