some AssocSS comments on the latest draft [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 February 24]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 2010 February 25 3:59
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; Grosso, Paul
> Subject: Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 February 24


> >> ACTION to Henry:  Update the AssocSS DoC with proposed resolutions.
> >
> > Done at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/09/xml-stylesheet.html

> > (dated 24 February 2010) with changes highlighted.
> >
> >>
> >> ACTION to Henry:  Update the AssocSS draft per our proposed
> >> resolutions.
> >>
> >
> > Done at  http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/01/disposition.html

> > (dated 24 February 2010).


> > ACTION to Henry:  Propose some new words for holman-1.
> 
> "Editorial note: HST 2010-02-24
> Addresses holman-1
> 
> An xml-stylesheet processor should interpret xml-stylesheet processing
> instructions and their pseudo-attributes as described in 4 The
> xml-stylesheet processing instruction, that is, as providing links to
> and
> information about one or more stylesheets to be applied to the
> containing
> document."
> 
> I don't see how this addresses his comment. We still don't define how
> to
> interpret the pseudo-attributes (we agreed before that it was out of
> scope
> to do so) (...except for one requirement that has been added now about
> charset; more on that below). Saying that they should be interpreted as
> described (but not as required) doesn't make much sense.
> 
> holman-1 asked for, as far as I can tell: "if the requirements are the
> same as in HTML4, then say so explicitly. If it's out of scope, then
> say
> so explicitly." The proposed text does neither.
> 
> My proposed text is as follows:
> 
> "It is out of scope for this specification how the pseudo-attributes
> are
> to be interpreted by the application. Other specifications can have
> requirements about this for specific style sheet languages."

Let's see what Henry suggests, and then we can discuss the
alternatives in email and on the telcon.

> 
> 
> > ACTION to Henry:  Delete the final sentence of the body
> > (done) and craft Appendix B.
> >
> > ACTION to Henry:  Provide a rationale for making this
> > a second edition.
> >
> > ACTION to Simon:  Review the latest draft and DoC and
> > indicate acceptance of or comments about the changes.
> 
> "Editorial note: HST 2010-02-24
> Addresses kay-3
> 
> The value is advisory in that it must be ignored if the referenced
> stylesheet itself provides character encoding information, either
> explicitly via an HTTP header, or implicitly via its media type, as in
> the case of XML documents."
> 
> I think this should be made non-normative (e.g. s/must/will likely/ or
> similar), since we agreed to not have processing requirements on
> pseudo-attribute values.

I think I tend to agree that we should avoid "must" terminology here.

> 
> 
> "Editorial note: HST 2010-02-24
> Addresses taylor-2
> 
> [Definition: The string matched by PseudoAttValue in the PseudoAtt
> production — after any CharRefs and PredefEntityRefs are replaced with
> the
> characters they represent and with the start and end quotes removed —
> constitutes the value of the corresponding pseudo-attribute.] Each
> CharRef
> in PseudoAttValue is replaced with the character it represents
> according
> to XML [XML]. Each PredefEntityRef in PseudoAttValue is replaced with
> with
> U+0026 (&) if it is "&amp;", U+003C (<) if it is "&lt;", U+003E (>) if
> it
> is "&gt;", U+0022 (") if it is "&quot;" and U+0027 (') if it is
> "&apos;"."
> 
> The definition doesn't place any requirements, it just defines a term
> (maybe we should make this clearer by saying "...after being modified
> as
> follows" instead of listing how it's modified). So the processing
> hasn't
> actually changed. We need to insert a sentence after the definition,
> something like: "The first and the last character (i.e. the quotes) in
> PseudoAttValue are removed."

I'm not sure I agree that changing a definition doesn't change
processing requirements, but I will leave such wording decisions
up to the editors for now.

> 
> 
> The references section has "(Non-normative.)" and "(non-normative)"; we
> should probably change one of those.

Probably.

paul

Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 20:33:52 UTC