W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Incorrect use of the word "valid' in the XSLT 2.0 WD

From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:13:48 +0100
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E6210602679C83@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, xsl-editors@w3.org
Thanks for these comments. I'll record it as an editorial issue and try to
get the corrections into the next published draft.

Michael Kay 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
> Sent: 03 March 2002 20:45
> To: xsl-editors@w3.org
> Subject: Incorrect use of the word "valid' in the XSLT 2.0 WD
> Section 12.1 states:
> The lang attribute indicates that a collation suitable for a 
> particular natural language is required. The effective value of the 
> attribute must be a value that would be valid for the xml:lang 
> attribute (see [XML])
> In fact, the 2nd edition of the XML spec is quite clear that no 
> particular value for xml:lang is either malformed or invalid, in and 
> of itself. And of course in general, validity depends on what the DTD 
> says.
> I suggest that this section be reworded to state something like "The 
> effective value of the attribute must be a language code as defined 
> by he values of the attribute are language identifiers as defined by 
> [IETF RFC 3066], Tags for the Identification of Languages, or its 
> successor on the IETF Standards Track
> Similarly
> ERR77 states:
> [ERR077] It is a dynamic error if a resource contains characters that 
> are not valid XML characters. The processor must either signal the 
> error, or must recover in an implementation-defined way; one possible 
> outcome is that the processor will produce an output file that is not 
> well-formed XML.
> I think this should be "characters that are not valid XML 
> characters". Otherwise it implies that validity is a prerequisite for 
> XSLT.  The same problem reoccurrs in ERR078.
> Section 14.3.2 states "if the value is not a valid QName" which 
> should really be "if the value is not a well-formed QName" 14.6.4, 
> ERR093, ERR098, ERR099, ERR101, and ERR106 have the identical problem.
> ERR086 also overloads the definition of valid in the description of 
> picture strings.
> 16.1.2 uses the word "validation" when what it probably means is some 
> for of well-formedness checking.
> Section 18 uses the word valid in the context of checking URI syntax.
> In general I'd try to be very careful about using the word "valid" 
> when it does not specifically reference the concept of DTD or schema 
> validity. Several places in the spec use it to refer to things like 
> "expressions that would have been valid under XPath 1.0". I would 
> prefer "expressions that would have been syntactically correct under 
> XPath" or "expressions that would have been legal under XPath 1.0" 
> This definition of the word valid doesn't appear to actually be 
> defined until very late in the spec J1.
> -- 
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> |          The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001)           |
> |             http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/bible2/              |
> |   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/   |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
> |  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      |
> |  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/    |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 04:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:52 GMT