W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2009

Re: First Editors' draft of XML Stylesheet PI 2e

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:14:49 +0100
To: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u24emz1gidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:57:56 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:20:29 +0200, François Yergeau  
> <francois@yergeau.com> wrote:
>> Simon Pieters a écrit :
>>> Could you elaborate on why you think this would be better?
>> The stated intent (para just above section 4) is to make the definition  
>> of "Processing instructions with pseudo-attributes" (hereinafter PIPAs)  
>> reusable by other specs.  But such other specs may not want PIs that  
>> are not PIPAs to be ignored, they may want them to be treated  
>> differently or whatever.
> Ok. Maybe we could make the PIPA algorithm either return a list of  
> pseudo-attributes or an error.

This has been done.

>> In fact, thinking about it more, it seems that this is also what we  
>> want in this spec.  We want to provide a way to recognize (and act  
>> upon) certain PIs, but we certainly do not want to force user agents to  
>> ignore any other PIs.  Yet, as the draft stands, it appears to force  
>> user agents wanting to claim conformance to this spec to completely  
>> ignore any PI that is not a PIPA, anywhere in the document. We should  
>> be careful to say something like "...must ignore for purposes of  
>> stylesheet linking" or something like that.
> Indeed.

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 09:15:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:40 UTC