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 18:05:10 -0700
Message-ID: <28d56ece0709101805q3ab25c6fvdc97094c8d77c20d@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 9/10/07, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com> wrote:
>
> At 01:14 PM 9/10/2007 -0700, Alex Milowski wrote:
> >On 9/10/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't believe there was working group consensus to require that all
> > > steps produce only fixed up documents. I think it would be better if
> > > there had been, but there wasn't.
> >
> >Obviously, I agree.  Anyone else?
>
> I agree.
>
> Although, if pressed, I might say that top-level steps had to produce
> WF and namespace-fixed documents. This might allow nested steps
> to mess things up so long as the outer step's output is clean.

Well, that's a count of 3 (or 2.5).

In order to move things along, what would make me "comfortable"
would be that we have the general language that Norm has
put forth and that we require *our* steps to output "infosets"
that don't require namespace fixup.

I'd be OK with leaving that as "implementation defined" but we could
easily have a non-normative appendix suggesting ways in which
you might go about it.  Since such text would be non-normative, it doesn't
have to be 100% correct.  I think we can get very close with the proposal
I sent out earlier and I'd be fine with that being a non-normative suggestion.

-- 
--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
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 01:05:17 GMT

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