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

RE: New editor's draft of XML Processor Profiles

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:17:29 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DAE9A004@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 September 22 13:01
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: New editor's draft of XML Processor Profiles
> available for review.  Mostly editorial changes.  Only changes since
> previous draft have been highlighted in the diff version.
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/diff.html

Looks good to me with one question.

Mohamed had said:

 Probably I missed something but the XProc 1.0 spec says
 that Load "It may perform xml:id processing". So I cannot
 understand why the following pipeline:
   <p:pipeline xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc">
     <p:xinclude fixup-xml-base="true" fixup-xml-lang="true"/>
 is able to do "3. Identification of all xml:id attributes as
 IDs as required by [xml:id Version 1.0]"

I'm not positive I understand his point, but I think he
is saying that XProc doesn't require xml:id processing,
so the sample pipeline may not identify all xml:id 
attributes, in which case it would not implement the
recommended profile as stated.

I didn't see any changes in this area, so I wondered 
if this comment has been addressed.

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 18:18:26 UTC

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