W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: PSVI issues

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 15:29:02 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0805080629t69dd808ct7c1ee07d48a92ac6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Sorry Henri,

I was asking if you Can provide one or two use cases for psvi-available() ?

Mohamed

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  1) The functionality provided by the 'psvi-required' attribute is
>    perfectly reasonable and self-contained, and it should be retained
>    unchanged.  If I want to write pipelines which simple won't work
>    (statically) when a processor doesn't support the PSVI, that's what
>    I'll use.
>
>  2) I am unconvinced that we need to provide a means to tell processors
>    which do support the PSVI whether or not they need to do so when
>    executing a particular pipeline.  That feels like an
>    product-specific optimisation to me, and as such _finally_ gives me
>    an example of a realistic use for <pipeinfo> -- a product is free
>    do define a <pipeinfo> child which can be inserted before
>    e.g. validate steps to say, in effect, "I do/don't care about the
>    PSVI".
>
>    I'd rather wait until we see if such annotations turn out to be
>    provided, and what they look like, before trying to add something
>    along those lines into the language.
>
>  3) Having said that, I think it _does_ make sense to provide a means
>    for pipeline authors to do something at runtime depending on PSVI
>    support.  But I think the minimum necessary to declare victory is
>    just psvi-available(), which if true means the processor claims
>    it's passing PSVI information along.  No granularity or locality is
>    implied, that is, the value should be the same at all times/places
>    within a given episode.
>
>  4) Wrt to the amount of support required, I think we say PSVI support
>    implies two things:
>
>    a) All PSVI properties produced on the output of a step MUST be
>       available to the steps which take that output as one of their
>       inputs;
>
>    b) Implementations SHOULD preserve PSVI properties across steps
>       insofar as that is consistent with step semantics.  It is
>       implementation-defined what PSVI properties it supports overall,
>       and what PSVI properties are lost by what steps.
>
>  ht
>  - --
>   Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
>                      Half-time member of W3C Team
>     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>             Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                    URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>  [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
>  iD8DBQFIIvwTkjnJixAXWBoRAh8pAJ94gJoZHwfkOdnFqQD7+SNMIii+FwCcDTD0
>  EsHyrgpuX4F/UI4LZQLszNs=
>  =Avzk
>  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 13:29:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 May 2008 13:29:36 GMT