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

Re: Unserializable documents

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:06:00 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2myw2cqdj.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
| I think we agree that we should allow implementations that don't check
| serializability at every step (because it would be expensive) and
| implementations that do, and generate an error (because they really do
| serialize at every step).

I suggest we replace the first paragraph of 2.2 with:

  Although some steps can read and write non-XML resources, what flows
  between steps through input ports and output ports are exclusively
  XML documents or sequences of XML documents. The inputs and outputs
  can be implemented as sequences of characters, events, or object
  models, or any other representation the implementation chooses.

  Some steps can produce XML documents which have no direct
  serialization (because they produce nodes with conflicting or
  missing namespace declarations, for example). Implementors are
  encouraged to perform namespace fixup and other necessary
  adjustments before passing documents between steps, but they are not
  required to do so. Conversely, an implementation which /does/
  serialize betweens steps and therefore must perform such fixups or
  reject documents that cannot be serialized, is also conformant.

Does that work for anyone?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Through space the universe grasps me
http://nwalsh.com/            | and swallows me up like a speck;
                              | through thought I grasp it.-- Pascal

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 17:06:12 GMT

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