RE: AssocSS issue #5 [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 July 1]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 2009 July 16 1:52
> To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AssocSS issue #5 [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009
> July 1]
> 
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:02:31 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 July 15 13:50
> >> To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 July 1
> >>
> >> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:02:17 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The latest issues document is at
> >> >> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm

> >>
> >> #5 says:
> >>
> >> "If there are duplicate (known) pseudo-attributes, the entire PI MUST be
> >> ignored by the xml-stylesheet processor."
> >>
> >> I think this should be the case whether the duplicate pseudo-attributes
> >> are known or not.
> >
> > But #4 says:
> >
> >  The unknown pseudo-attributes MUST be ignored. The rest of
> >  the PI is processed by the xml-stylesheet processor.
> >
> > If they are ignored, then the processor isn't even going to
> > notice that they are duplicates.
> 
> Hmm. This does not match what I had in mind.
> 
> What I had in mind was more like the following:

Of course, you're describing one possible implementation, which is 
not the way we'd want to state it in the spec, but I understand your
description as a use case, and that's reasonable.
 
> 
> 1. Parse the PI to obtain all pseudo-attributes. if the PI doesn't match
> the allowed syntax, ignore the whole PI.

I'm okay with that so far.

> The syntax bans any duplicate pseudo-attrs.

No, syntax can't do that.  Banning duplicate attributes is part
of the semantic processing.  In the case of XML, it's a WFC 
(WFC Unique Att Spec) which gets applied after the syntactic parsing.

There is no a priori reason we need to ban duplicate pseudo-atts
before ignoring unknown ones.

On the other hand, there is no a priori reason we couldn't.
It's a decision we need to make.

I figured, since we were going to ignore them anyway, there
was no reason to toss the whole PI for something we're going
to ignore.

At this point, we need to have a WG discussion about this,
but in the interest of making progress, I suggest we consider
the current suggested resolution as the current status quo
which means we'd need to have a preponderance of voices (or
some very loud ones) to change the proposed resolution here.

paul

> 2. Pass all pseudo-attributes on for further processing.
> 3. In this further processing, unknown pseudo-attributes must be ignored.
> requirements about alternate="" also go here.
> 
> --
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 14:31:58 UTC