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

Re: Some remaining AssocSS issues

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:25:41 +0000
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5biqd9i362.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Hash: SHA1

Grosso, Paul writes:

> 1.  more restrictive location for xml-stylesheet PIs
>> > The first edition of AssocSS says:
>> >
>> >  The xml-stylesheet processing instruction is allowed only
>> >  in the prolog of an XML document. The syntax of XML
>> >  constrains where processing instructions are allowed in
>> >  the prolog; the xml-stylesheet processing instruction is
>> >  allowed anywhere in the prolog that meets these constraints.
>> >
>> > Our draft 2nd Edition is more restrictive in that we don't
>> > consider PIs within the (internal or external subset of the)
>> > document type declaration.  We are therefore making some
>> > documents conforming to AssocSS 1st Edition non-conforming
>> > to the 2nd Edition.  Henry, are you okay with this?

I'd like to talk about this one.  I'd be inclined to a compromise
 a) allows the PI anywhere in the prolog as currently;
 b) adds "SHOULD, for interoperability, be covered by one of the S
    non-terminals in prods. 1 or 22".
and allows conformant processors to ignore PIs outside Misc.

> 2.  constraints on pseudo-attribute values

I have mixed feelings on this.  On the one hand, the current
spec. allows anything, which means in practice that implementations
are likely to vary in what they do and don't object to.  This would in
principle be bad for interop, but since in practice I suspect there is
very little variation/error in actual x-s PIs out there already, we
can do pretty much whatever we choose here.

On the other hand, I'm not altogether comfortable with mixing a strict
story about document conformance with a lax story about processor
conformance in the same specification.

> 3.  Note on same document reference from the PI
>> > In AssocSS 1st Edition, there is the following note:
>> >
>> >  NOTE: Since the value of the href attribute is a URI reference,
>> >  it may be a relative URI and it may contain a fragment identifier.
>> >  In particular the URI reference may contain only a fragment
>> >  identifier. Such a URI reference is a reference to a part of
>> >  the document containing the xml-stylesheet processing instruction
>> >  (see [RFC2396]). The consequence is that the xml-stylesheet
>> >  processing instruction allows style sheets to be embedded in
>> >  the same document as the xml-stylesheet processing instruction.
>> >
>> > Do we want to leave it or some version of it in the 2nd Ed?

Yes, but updated to be consistent with 3986, I think.

- -- 
       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]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 15:26:21 UTC

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