Re: AssocSS issue 15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

ht writes:

> Further to our discussion on the XML Core WG telcon today, I propose a
> modification of this, as suggested by Paul:
>
>      [1] StyleSheetPI ::= '<?xml-stylesheet' PIBody '?>'
>                               [XSSC: XML PI]
>
>      [1a] PIBody      ::= (S PseudoAtt)* S?
>
>  Somewhere we then have this:
>
>    [XSSC: a StyleSheetPI *must* be an XML processing instruction
>    (ref. REC-xml#NT-PI)]

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.

The Introduction [1] to the XML spec. says:

  [Definition: A software module called an *XML processor* is used to
  read XML documents and provide access to their content and
  structure.]  [Definition: It is assumed that an XML processor is
  doing its work on behalf of another module, called the
  *application*.] This specification describes the required behavior
  of an XML processor in terms of how it must read XML data and the
  information it must provide to the application.

We need something similar in AssocSS.  Along these lines, maybe:

 I. Conformance

   [XML] defines an *application* as a software module which receives
   the information content of an XML document from an *XML processor*.
   [Definition: A (conforming) *xml-stylesheet processor* is such an
   application which processes XML processing instructions [ref
   REC-xml/#sec-pi] whose [PITarget] is 'xml-stylesheet' in accordance
   with this specification.]

This would leave our new wordings which use phrases such as "passed to
the application" in an uncomfortable state.  I wonder if we should
rethink a bit and try to express things in terms of a model in which
the xml-stylesheet processor assembles packages of attr/value pairs
"for further processing", where that further processing is defined, as
in the current spec., by appeal to the semantics of <LINK REL=...>.

Does that seem a hopeful direction to go?

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-intro
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFKXgOvkjnJixAXWBoRAvM5AJ9fyjPV8ydNtv5BUwPbIFVL9vykhgCfRTvy
BCXlL+o8Vg8Wxya8oeU6HZQ=
=SQDM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 16:29:08 UTC