- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:39:35 -0400
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml- > processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson > Sent: Wednesday, 2010 July 14 6:33 > To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > Subject: New editors' draft of XML Processor Profiles > > Now available, with a new (not what I had expected) approach to > invariants: > > http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html > http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/diff.html A perhaps minor issue, but I'm disturbed by the various uses of "base URI" in this document. I was first alerted to this when I noted that, in the terminology section, the definition of base URI references RFC 3986. I would have expected it to reference either XML Base or Infoset. So I looked at uses of the phrase throughout, and became more concerned/confused. The phrase occurs: 1. In the terminology section with a reference to RFC 3986. 2. In point 2 of each of the four profiles where the phrase is "base URI property...in conformance with XML Base". 3. In section 3.1 of the invariants where it is shown as [base URI] and is pretty clearly representing an Infoset property. It is not really clear what the phrase "base URI property" in section 2 means. If "base URI" in this spec is really defined by RFC 3986, then it makes no sense to say "base URI property" in section 2. And [base URI] in section 3.1 is certainly a reference to the Infoset. I see two choices: a. Leave the reference to RFC 3986 in the terminology section and delete the word "property" from the phrase "base URI property...in conformance with XML Base" in section 2; b. Change the terminology section to say: The term *[base URI] property* is used in this specification as it is defined in [XML Information Set (Second Edition)]. and then in section 2, replace: base URI property of each element in conformance with [XML Base]; with: [base URI] property of each element in conformance with [XML Information Set (Second Edition)]. (Note that Infoset says: Several information items have a [base URI] or [declaration base URI] property. These are computed according to [XML Base]. so a normative reference to Infoset is a normative reference to XML Base.) Regardless of any of the above, I think we need to review our normative and non-normative references. In particular, given section 3, I would think that Infoset should be a normative reference. If we go with my choice b, RFC 3986 is no longer a reference. The latest NS 1.0 version is the third edition, not second. paul
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 15:40:18 UTC