- 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