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

Re: Unserializable documents

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:16:26 -0700
Message-ID: <28d56ece0709041016vaa0b8e2jab66ca8086aff6fe@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 9/4/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / 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?

Yes.  Sufficiently squishy.

--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 17:16:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC