W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2010

Re: result of AssocSS PER-to_Rec telcon

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:41:26 +0200
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Message-ID: <op.vbr8vcvlidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:02:48 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

> We had a fairly confused and confusing, unsuccessful
> transition call last week for AssocSS.
> The minutes are team-confidential, but Liam's summary is:
>  The XML Core WG needs to draft a note, non-normative text,
>  to be added to the definition of media, explaining that
>  in the absence of a media attribute, the behaviour is
>  implementation-dependent, and warning people about
>  interoperability issues in that case.
> I'm not sure where to go from here on this, but my best
> suggestion is to draft a Note to add to the discussion
> of the media pseudo-attribute that points out that the
> meaning of an omitted media attribute is--like everything
> else with the meaning of all pseudo-attributes, as we've
> already said in the Note currently in section 2--application
> (not implementation) dependent, and I'm not sure I agree
> this implies interoperability issues beyond anything else
> in this spec, so I don't feel we need a separate explicit
> warning about that here.
> I do not quite understand the next steps--perhaps Liam
> can elaborate.
> I think we suggest wording for an additional note, and
> then I think we're supposed to ask Daniel G for his
> acceptance (I don't see why he would give it after his
> previous comments, but who know), and then I guess we
> let Liam discuss it with TimBL and the rest of W3M and
> figure out what happens next.
> At this point, I feel I should be suggesting wording so
> that we can make some progress in email, but I'm just in
> no mood to do so--I'm hoping perhaps someone else will.
> If not, perhaps I'll give it an attempt later this week.

Our current note is

The details of how applications exploit the information contained in  
xml-stylesheet processing instructions are out of scope for this document,  
as they may reasonably vary from application to application.

Maybe we can repeat it for each pseudo-attribute:

The details of how applications interpret the value of this  
pseudo-attribute, or the absence of this pseudo-attribute, are out of  
scope for this document, as they may reasonably vary from application to  

BTW we shouldn't be using "may" there since it's an RFC2119 keyword.  
Suggested replacement: "can".

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 26 April 2010 18:42:13 UTC

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