RE: AssocSS issue 15

Henry, what are your latest thoughts on this given the exchange below?

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Thursday, 2009 July 16 11:39
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: AssocSS issue 15
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, 2009 July 16 10:54
> > To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: AssocSS issue 15
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:22:26 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> -----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
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > 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],
> >
> > This can be solved by using (S PIBody)?
> 
> True.
> 
> >
> > > 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].
> >
> > 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 just didn't think it was worth it.
> 
> But I'm happy to let the WG decide what's best.
> 
> >
> > > On the other
> > > hand, neither of those PIs are syntactically valid xml-stylesheet PIs
> > > anyway because the href pseudo-attribute is #REQUIRED,
> >
> > It is not per the errata. :-)
> 
> The type attribute is no longer required, but the errata do not
> change the fact that the href attribute is required, as far as
> I can tell.
> 
> >
> > > so it doesn't
> > > bother me that they no longer are matched by productions [1] and [1a].
> > >
> > > Henry (and others), what do you think?

Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 14:41:19 UTC