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
[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

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?


paul
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 16:17:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 July 2010 16:17:31 GMT