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

Re: Unserializable documents

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:16:37 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2642pqpcq.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| 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:

Yep, makes sense.

| 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
| of
|
|   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.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Art happens--no hovel is safe from it,
http://nwalsh.com/            | no prince may depend upon it, and
                              | vastest intelligence cannot bring it
                              | about.--J. M. Whistler

Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 12:16:56 GMT

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