W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2010

Re: XProc Minutes: 8 Apr 2010

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:28:17 +0100
To: murray@muzmo.com
Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5btyrdsxby.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

murray writes:

> Alas and alack, some XML processors, such as GRDDL, do not agree. I
> think that we should present at least those two views of infoset
> construction. Could one of you please explain why not?

If GRDDL forbids entity expansion, that's just wrong, I missed it at
the time or I would have objected.  So I would say, GRDDL should use
the now-defined minProfile, which doesn't do XInclude.

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLxglBkjnJixAXWBoRAqf9AJ97cQUeZ/CwFlEceqldPehtNIS1QwCdHDk1
Idr6uHhPs+qsrCFXMLZk6+U=
=/jE5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 18:29:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 April 2010 18:29:11 GMT