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

Re: Unserializable documents

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:30:00 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b3axup19j.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> I suggest we replace the first paragraph of 2.2 with:

I'm happy with these words, but I think we need to add a bit more in
two respects:

1) Put an obligation on implementations to document -- somthing along
the lines of

 Except for cases which are specifically called out in [section 7],
 the extent to which namespace fixup and checks for outputs which
 cannot be serialized into well-formed XML documents are performed on
 intermediate outputs is *implementation-defined*.

2) Clarify that serialization *must* produce well-formed documents.
Somewhere, possibly in 2.2, we need to say something along the lines

  Whenever an implementation serializes pipeline contents, for example
  for pipeline outputs, or as part of steps such as p:store or
  p:http-request, it is a *dynamic error* if that serialization cannot
  be done so as to produce a well-formed XML document.

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 21:30:34 UTC

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