Re: [closed] Re: more PSVI

thx, sounds good to me

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
>
>> / 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.
>
> The WG has considered this issue and concluded that only the following
> editorial change was necessary to address it:
>
> <note>
> <para>A processor that supports passing PSVI properties between steps
> is always free to do so. Even if
> <code>psvi-required="false"</code> is explicitly specified, it is not
> an error for a step to produce a result that includes additional PSVI
> properties, provide it does not violate the constraints above.</para>
> </note>
>
>
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything the same; everything
> http://nwalsh.com/            | distinct.
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 10:39:46 UTC