W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: unsatisfied

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:30:40 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030321101607.01c744b0@172.27.10.30>
To: (wrong string) Éric Bischoff <e.bischoff@noos.fr>
Cc: xsl-editors@w3.org

At 07:29 2003 03 21 +0100, Éric Bischoff wrote:

>Le Thursday 20 March 2003 23:05, Paul Grosso a écrit:
>> The public XSL (FO) Disposition of Comments document at
>> http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/2003/01/FO-DoC
>> has just been updated with responses to your comments.
>>
>> In particular, the following comments (see the ToC
>> in the above referenced document) have just been
>> added to this document:
>> Comments 13, 18, 31, 32 (items 1 and 4), 33 (items 1 and 2),
>> 34, and 38.
>>
>> If you are unsatisfied with the response, please feel
>> free to post another comment to xsl-editors@w3.org.
>> (However, either send a new message or--if you reply
>> to this message--please change the subject appropriately!)
>
>Paul, my last comments and your reactions to these comments for comment #15 
>have not been updated.


Comment 38 is where we processed your reply to our response
to comment 15.

Unfortunately, I am just the chair, not the editor of the
Comments doc or the entire SG, and some other SG members
tend to be more "terse" that I would be, so the official
reply on comment 38 is less explanatory than I would like.

In fact, the SG agrees that datatype handling in XSL is
an area that could use more work, but such work is not
within scope for an erratum.  Furthermore, we are somewhat
constrained by our requirement to support the CSS syntax
which often causes problems for the XSL FO expression language.

So for now, the point is that the <uri-specification> datatype 
is really a subtype of <string>.  That is, the value of the 
src property follows all that for something of the datatype 
<string> but then in addition also has to follow the extra 
constraints defined by <uri-specification>.

As such, the unusual quoting you noticed is, in fact, allowable.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why that unusual quoting was
chosen for the example in the first place, as I agree that isn't
the way I'd usually quote such things.

So if you still feel we have misinterpreted the spec as it now
stands, please submit another comment.

regards,

paul
Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 11:39:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:53 GMT