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

Re: Towards a consensus draft (urgent)

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:50:31 -0700
Message-ID: <28d56ece0709100950re60ee78k2187bafe73fac186@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 9/10/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> Dear Working Group,
> Please review the latest editor's draft (or at least sections 2.2 and
> the new 2.6.1, as well as p:label-elements) and *if you do not believe
> that we can go to Last Call with this draft* please *comment in email*
> as soon as possible.

None of my proposal on having the steps "do the right thing" is in
this draft.  If
we can't (or don't want) to mandate that steps do the right thing, at least we
should add them as "should/may" or example of avoiding namespace

For example, we could say for p:add-attribute that an implementation can
avoid namespace fix by ensuring the namespace is declared when it
adds the attribute.

Keep in mind that XSLT 2.0 avoids this problem by saying that the
namespace *must* be declared when you use xsl:attribute or

We can't quite go to last call without addressing this.
p:add-attribute had a statement
about adding a namespace declaration and that is now labeled "FIXME".   Up until
now, no one has had issue with that sentence.

--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 Monday, 10 September 2007 16:50:37 UTC

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