RE: AssocSS issue 15

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 July 15 11:29
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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.]

I like the general idea.

I'd add some wording such as:

 ...which processes XML processing instructions...in accordance
 with this specification and passes on information for proccessing
 by subsequent application modules.

Then...

> 
> This would leave our new wordings which use phrases such as "passed to
> the application" in an uncomfortable state. 

...we could use the phrase "passed on for further application
processing"
or some such.

paul

> 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 16:56:13 UTC