W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org > August 2002

RE: XML 1.1 Last Call Comments from the XSL WG

From: Mark Scardina <mark.scardina@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:18:53 -0700
To: "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, <w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002401c24979$e1dc3210$6801a8c0@mscardinlap>

Paul, I don't see where your "resolution" addresses the paragraph on the
XSL WG's issues with the Character Model spec. Since they are rooted in
the overall normalization requirement which you are adopting, you
inherit these as well and they cannot simply be passed off.



Mark V. Scardina              Group Product Mgr & XML Evangelist
CORE & XML DEVELOPMENT GROUP  E-mail: Mark.Scardina@oracle.com
Web Site: http://otn.oracle.com/tech/xml/


|-----Original Message-----
|From: w3c-xsl-wg-request@w3.org 
|[mailto:w3c-xsl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grosso
|Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:02 AM
|To: w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org
|Cc: w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org; www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
|Subject: Re: XML 1.1 Last Call Comments from the XSL WG
|At 10:35 2002 07 17 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
|>The XSL WG makes the following comments on XML 1.1.
|>[XSL]We find the extension to XML name and whitespace characters 
|>[XSL]However, we find that the requirement for full normalization is 
|>overly burdensome and introduces significant technical problems.
|>  - XSLT constructs result documents and therefore could be 
|required to
|>    perform significant additional computation. For some 
|normalization cases,
|>    it isn't clear that the additional computation is even well 
|> defined.
|>  - Even when new nodes are not constructed on the fly, they might be
|>    copied from different documents, which could potentially be a
|>    mixture of XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 documents with different
|>    normalization properties.
|>  - Intermediate result trees that might or might not be serialized
|>    would also need to be considered with respect to normalization
|>[XSL]In as much as the normalization requirement is transitively 
|>applied from the Character Model specification and given our 
|>objection[1] to normalization in that document, we cannot 
|agree to the 
|>mandate for normalization in XML 1.1 until such time as our 
|issues with 
|>the Character Model specification are resolved.
|>[XSL]The XSL WG wonders if the XML Core WG has a position on the 
|>normalization of 1.0 documents to make them 1.1 compliant, and if so 
|>what role do they envision for XSLT in that process?
|>                                        For the XSL WG,
|>                                          norm
|We have recorded this issue at [1]
|wherein our resolution is listed as follows:
|  Resolution: Noted. The Core WG doesn't see any reason why the XSL WG 
|  would need to define XML 1.1 result trees, so the only issue is 
|  serialization of 1.1, and algorithms for doing that in the presence
|  of sensible data are well-defined. A note will be added to XML 1.1
|  about how to serialize 1.1 documents (given normalization).
|The above mentioned note in our latest draft at [2] is:
|  XML applications that create XML 1.1 output from either XML 1.1 or
|  XML 1.0 input should ensure that the output is fully normalized; it
|  is not necessary for internal processing forms to be fully 
|Please let us know if you are not satisfied with this 
|resolution of your comments.
|Paul Grosso, co-chair for the XML Core WG
|[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/01/blueberry-comments#XSL1
|[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/08/CR-xml11-20020820
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 21:19:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:13:20 UTC