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

RE: New editors' draft of XML Processor Profiles (comments on section 3)

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:16:54 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA5F340C@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org
> 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

I can see that section 3 took a lot of work to develop;
thanks, Henry.  I have mostly editorial comments.

I recommend we change the title of section 3.1 to
 Data model invariants within a given profile
(unless I'm misunderstanding, because that's what
I think we mean here).


Section 3.1, Unexpanded Entity Reference ...
It would help to make clearer just what "will not occur".
At first I wasn't sure if that just referred to [parent]
(though I soon realized otherwise).  I think we could
stand to be a bit more verbose and just have a standalone
(pardon the pun) sentence saying something like:
 There will be no Unexpanded Entity Reference Information 
 Items when using any profile if standalone="yes" or
 when using 2.3 The modest XML processor profile or 2.4 The
 basic recommended XML processor profile profiles.


Section 3.2.1.  Again, the bit after the emdash is unclear.
We should write a complete sentence that is clearer.


Section 3.2.2.  I assume we will plan to expand the "Ditto"s.


In section 3.2 in general, wouldn't variation between, say,
minimum and modest include all the differences listed in
section 3.2.2?  So shouldn't section 3.2.1 have at least
a statement such as "And all variation listed in 3.2.2
and 3.2.3"?  Similarly for a reference to 3.2.2 from the
bottom of 3.2.2?

Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 16:17:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:48 UTC