- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:49:04 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
I agree with both yours and Mohamed point ... and yes I have read these sections a few times and understand how things are supposed to work; I still think there is a contradiction between the 2 sections I quoted. J On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > "James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes: > >> in section 3.9 Syntax Summaries it states; >> >> 'It is a static error (err:XS0008) if any element in the XProc >> namespace has attributes not defined by this specification unless they >> are extension attributes. >> ' >> then in section 3.8 Extension attributes it says; >> >> 'A processor which encounters an extension attribute that it does not >> recognize must behave as if the attribute was not present.' >> >> Both of these statements seem to create a contradiction. >> >> How can a processor 'know' it is not recognizing an unknown extension >> attribute ? > > Section 3.8, Extension Attributes, says: > > [Definition: An element from the XProc namespace may have any > attribute not from the XProc namespace, provided that the > expanded-QName of the attribute has a non-null namespace URI. Such an > attribute is called an extension attribute.] > > Attributes in a namespace are extension attributes. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | All the labors of the ages, all the > http://nwalsh.com/ | devotion, all the inspiration, all the > | noonday brightness of human genius, are > | destined to extinction.--Bertrand > | Russell >
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 15:49:49 UTC