W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > June 2013

Re: XProc Minutes 31 Jan 2013

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:39:52 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5br4gdoox3.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
ht writes:


>>    <note diff="add"> <p>If an XML document which specifies
>>    <code>standalone="no"</code> in its XML Declaration is processed
>>    with either this profile or the <specref ref="idProfile"/>,
>>    defined below, the resulting infoset may be lacking items that
>>    the author deemed significant. This is not an error, because
>>    checking the standalone declaration is a validity constraint.</p>
>
> That last sentence seems contradictory: I _think_ there's a 'not'
> missing. . .

OK, I was too quick.  After some spec. chasing and head scratching, I
think I understand what you were trying to do here.  Maybe clearer if
it read:

    <note diff="add"> <p>If an XML document which specifies
    <code>standalone="no"</code> in its XML Declaration is processed
    with either this profile or the <specref ref="idProfile"/>,
    defined below, the resulting infoset may be lacking items that the
    author deemed significant.  But no error will be signalled, as
    just noted above, a conformant XML processor conforming to one of
    these profiles cannot be a validating processor, and checking the
    standalone declaration is not 'no' in such cases is a validity
    constraint.  Processors conforming to one of these profiles may
    accordingly wish to provide some form of warning if they encounter
    <code>standalone="no"</code>.</p>

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 16:40:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:51 UTC