W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > August 2008

Re: more PSVI

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:30:49 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2bpzm3bja.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| thx goes to MohamedZ for pointing out the current WG debate as I had
| my own PSVI questions.
| a few ruminations on PSVI;
| * what if we want to preserve PSVI annotations through a step that
| does not require it ? e.g. something like a psvi-passthru attribute
| though perhaps all this is a bit cumbersome for corner case?

Most of the steps can change the structure of a document. That could
make any of the PSVI properties invalid. I think it's better to say
you have to (re)validate after you run those steps.

| * what happens when p:xslt is using a validating XSLT v2.0 does the
| existing psvi-required attribute need to be set to true then ?

I think the behavior in the absence of @psvi-required is
implementation-defined. The XSLT step is always free to produce PSVI
annotations. You only need to put @psvi-required on the step that
*consumes* XSLT output if you want to be sure that the implementation
kept them.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Wisdom is only a comparative quality,
http://nwalsh.com/            | it will not bear a single
                              | definition.--Marquess of Halifax

Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 10:31:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:41:07 UTC