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 08:46:08 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2lkbdwesv.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
| 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).

The chair would very much appreciate not being pushed into a process
corner.

| 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 believe the WG has rejected that position.

| 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.

Do I understand correctly that you're saying that you'd be happy if we
made the detailed suggestions about how to achieve output that doesn't
require namespace fixup non-normative and left the question of whether
or not implmentations produced infosets that require fixup
implementation-defined?

                                        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 12:46:18 GMT

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