- From: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:31:46 +1000
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-appformats@w3.org
On 10/10/2006, at 5:28 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: > > > Le 06-10-06 à 09:05, Ian Hickson a écrit : >> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 karl@w3.org wrote: >>> >>> The specification defines a MUST requirement for parsing the >>> document. >> >> The statement in question is: >> >> # The element attribute of the binding element and the includes >> attribute >> # of the content element, if specified, must be parsed according >> to the >> # rules in the Selectors specification. [SELECTORS] >> >> The requirement is not a requirement on how to parse the document, >> merely >> a requirement on how to parse the values of two specific attributes. > > yes that was understood. It was meant to be that way. Thanks for > the clarification on the comment. > >> Those >> attributes are defined as containing Selectors, so it seems wise to >> require that they be parsed according to the rules of the Selectors >> specification. > > yes. Cf another comment about "CSS Selectors", where in your reply, > it is stated that Selectors is a transversal technology not related > to CSS 3. > That will have to be addressed at a higher level. > > The rest of this issue is on hold once there will be more > clarifications on the outcome of WGs working on similar things. > Diversity is good if there is a common model which guarantee > interoperability. It is then unrelated to this thread. > > Thanks Ian for taking the time to answer Karl, does this mean you're no longer objecting? (Ian asks this question below). Dean > > >>> It makes then impossible for a conformant parser to use XPath (or >>> any >>> kind of parsing method like regex) to parse the document. >> >> Any parsing mechanism can be used to parse documents containing >> XBL, the >> requirement quoted above is merely requiring that whatever parsing >> mechanism is used, it implement the semantics of the Selectors >> language >> for the purposes of the two attributes mentioned. >> >> >> >>> Many XML tools have already implemented XPath and it doesn't seem >>> there >>> are a lot implementing Selectors. It would be better to not have >>> a MUST >>> on this requirement. Does it bring any benefits to impose the >>> parsing >>> rules? >> >> Hopfully this has clarified the confusion and removed the >> misunderstanding >> that any particular parsing mechanism must be used. (The parsing >> _rules_ >> must be defined, obviously, so that interoperability can be obtained. >> However that is separate from what technology is used to implement >> the >> parsing -- be it Perl Regular Expressions, LEX, expat, or whatever.) >> >> >>> Selectors is also still a Working Draft. It means the XBL 2.0 >>> specification will not be able to reach Rec until Selectors have >>> itself >>> reached PR. >> >> Selectors will reach PR far, far before XBL reaches PR. (Selectors >> has >> been in CR for several years and is ready to go to PR, it is merely >> awaiting the final writing of its implementation report. XBL2 >> doesn't even >> have a test suite yet.) >> >> >> Please let me know if this removes your objection. >> > >
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 11:32:16 UTC