Re: AssocSS issue 15

Without hearing any advice from Henry on how to proceed, I've gone ahead  
and produced a draft this morning based on the consensus documented in  
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm

    http://simon.html5.org/specs/xml-stylesheet


I have included requirements on documents (not relevant to xml-stylesheet  
processors) in order to make validators more useful for authors.

I have also included statements saying what the pseudo-attributes  
represent, however without giving any implementation requirements.


On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:22:26 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

>> OK, so in the _subsequent_ discussion, we were leaning towards
>> approaching this problem differently, by appeal to contextualisation
>> in terms of where this spec. sits in the picture of XML processor and
>> application provided by the XML spec. itself.
>
> And there was followup email discussing details of the wording.
>
> But back to the actual productions, my understanding is that our
> current plan is to have a production [1] (with only one right hand
> side) and a production [1a] something like what Henry shows above.
>
> However, to respond to Simon's issue about white space, I'm thinking
> we could do something like:
>
>      [1] StyleSheetPI ::= '<?xml-stylesheet' S PIBody '?>'
>
>      [1a] PIBody      ::= PseudoAtt (S PseudoAtt)* S?
>
> This does match a smaller set of PIs than before.  In particular
> <?xml-stylesheet?> used to match production [1] but would no longer
> match my suggested production [1], and <?xml-stylesheet ?> used to
> match production [1] and [1a] as Henry writes above but would no
> longer match my suggestion productions [1] and [1a].  On the other
> hand, neither of those PIs are syntactically valid xml-stylesheet PIs
> anyway because the href pseudo-attribute is #REQUIRED, so it doesn't
> bother me that they no longer are matched by productions [1] and [1a].

I've split the productions as above but without introducing subtle syntax  
changes. While it might not matter for xml-stylesheet, other  
specifications using the parsing rules might want to allow PIs with zero  
pseudo-attributes.


On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:01:52 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

> FWIW, while it's true the XML spec doesn't give details on how a
> PI is passed to the application, I note that the Infoset Rec at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204/#infoitem.pi
> says:
>
>  A processing instruction information item has the following properties:
>
>    1. [target] A string representing the target part of the
>       processing instruction (an XML name).
>    2. [content] A string representing the content of the processing
>       instruction, excluding the target and any white space immediately
>       following it. If there is no such content, the value of this
>       property will be an empty string.
>
> The way we're planning to define production [1a] below appears to make
> PIBody match the [content] infoitem.  This seems reasonable to me.

I've done this.


On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:39:23 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

>> This can be solved by using PseudoAtt? (S PseudoAtt)* S? (as I suggested
>> in the earlier email).
>
> I'm not sure.  If, when parsing, you skip PseudoAtt? because it is
> optional, then the next thing you must find is S.  I guess it depends
> how you read the BNF.  If you read this as DTD notation, I don't
> think this would work.  I'd think you need to say:
>
> PIBody ::= S |
>            PseudoAtt (S PseudoAtt)* S

I don't understand what the difference is between these two.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 09:26:35 UTC