W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > February 2001

Re: extensions to FO

From: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
Date: 07 Feb 2001 10:49:04 +0100
To: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
Message-ID: <yq8g0hq257z.fsf@jfouffa.inria.fr>
David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> writes:

> > it's safer to assume that everything within
> > unknown elements will be ignored. 
> 
> Ignored? or an error? and what does ignored mean? ignore an element and
> all its children, or (html style) ignore the element and process the
> children. 

Ignore the foreign element and all its children, and continue processing.

> When wearing a standards hat (as opposed to a TeX hacker's hat) I'd
> expect that the correct behaviour was to raise an error unless the spec
> for the document type explictly allowed foreign namespaces.

Raise an error and continue, or die? My expectation would be to
continue (possibly printing a warning). As for the spec explicitely
allowing foreign namespaces I don't see how this could work other than
for particular cases like XSLT where everything goes to the output
except elements from explicitely names extension namespaces (and that
conflicts with namespaces that change semantics like RDF).

Now in the case of XHTML, XSL, MathML and others, listing what to do
with other (explicitely listed) namespaces should certainly not be in
the spec (maybe that belongs to a W3C Note). I agree with Sebastian
saying that the specs should only tell us the syntax and semantics of
the FO namespace. Then it's up to the processor to do its best with
other namespaces.

Max.
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 04:49:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:06:08 GMT