Re: Suppressing ixml:state

Thanks,

Michael has summed up my position well.

I would like the option to suppress the entire attribute, whether or not there is also an option to supply the same information elsewhere, such as the standard out.

Thanks,
Tom

_________________
Tomos Hillman
eXpertML Ltd
+44 7793 242058
On 26 May 2022, 13:30 +0100, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, wrote:
> Since it was Tom who particular strongly agitated for being able to
> suppress ixml:state, I'd like to hear from him as well.
> Steven
>
> On Wednesday 25 May 2022 16:38:46 (+02:00), C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>
> >
> > Steven Pemberton writes:
> >
> > > "Processors may provide a user option to suppress that attribute"
> > >
> > > This was originally included when ixml:state="ambiguous" was the only
> > > possibility. Now we have:
> > >
> > >
> > > ambiguous
> > > failed
> > > prefix
> > > version-mismatch
> > >
> > >
> > > as possible tokens within the value.
> > >
> > >
> > > So what is it we want to allow the user to suppress? Is it only the
> > > "ambiguous" token, or is it the whole attribute?
> >
> > For what it's worth, my recollection is that the rationale for allowing
> > processors to offer such an option while remaining conformant was the
> > desire to cater to people who for whatever reason want the parse tree,
> > the whole parse tree, and nothing but the parse tree in the output.
> >
> > Two obvious subgroups here might be (a) people whose XML would be
> > exactly what their downstream applications expect, except for the
> > out-of-band information we have injected using ixml:state, saving them
> > having to insert a processing step into the pipeline just to strip the
> > attribute; and (b) people who would prefer that differeng kinds of
> > information (result, information about the result or about the process
> > producing the result) come in on different channels. Tom and John,
> > respectively, have stuck in my memory as propounding the views I
> > associate with groups (a) and (b).
> >
> > I think the rationale still holds, and I think it suggests that what we
> > want to allow conforming processors to suppress is the entire ixml:state
> > attribute.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> --
>