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

Re: Towards a consensus draft (urgent)

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:40:44 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2ps0pwf1v.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com> was heard to say:
| 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.

With respect, I think that just makes the problem more complicated.
Let's have a simple black-and-white answer: either the p:xyzzy step is
required to produce namespace well-formed output or it isn't.

Saying that it can produce synthetic infosets that require namespace
fixup if it's a child of p:viewport but not if it's a child of
p:pipeline doesn't help (IMHO).

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | 'tis expressly against the law of arms:
http://nwalsh.com/            | 'tis as arrant a piece of knavery, mark
                              | you now, as can be offer't; in your
                              | conscience, now, is it not?--Fluellen,
                              | Henry V

Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:40:54 GMT

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