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

Re: Unserializable documents

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 00:33:20 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0709050033m6c21d370ke373a073ea5f78fa@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

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

The way I read this, this implies that an implementation is fine using
SAX (or SAX++ to handle sequences) between components, without adding
a whole lot of necessary processing of those SAX events between steps.
So this is good.

But shouldn't we specify what we mean by "namespace fixup" (maybe a
reference to the XSLT specification?) and "other necessary
adjustments"?

Alex
-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms, open-source, for the Enterprise
http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 07:33:32 GMT

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