- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:28:53 +0100
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
At its recent f2f, the XProc WG renewed its efforts to address the concerns you raised in August with respect to our January draft [1] This is the first of what I hope will be a steady flow of responses. To start with a short and, I hope, easy one, you write: 4.4 Definitions The spec appears still to lack definitions for key terms, including most prominently profile and processing (specifically processing of declarations). This means that the issues originally raised as issue 4 and issue 7 in the review of April 2011 remain unresolved. If the WG's belief is that the reference to the XML spec suffices as a gloss of the words "reading and processing all external markup declarations", then I regret to inform you that this reader does not find any useful distinction between reading and processing in that document. What in the world do you think these words mean? The phrase you mention, "reading and processing all external markup declarations", is based on the second paragraph of the Entity Declared Well-formedness constraint [2] in the XML spec. Note that non-validating processors are not obligated to _read and process_ entity declarations occurring in parameter entities or in the external subset; for such documents, the rule that an entity must be declared is a well-formedness constraint only if standalone='yes'. [emphasis added] The "read and process" phrase appears again in section 5.1 [3], where the possibility of reading but _not_ processing is further described. The Processor Profiles spec. uses this phrase in the context of a discussion of DTD validation, where it seemed useful to us to emphasise that the XML spec. requires complete reading _and_ processing when validating, and so we did think that we could use the phrase without further explanation. Now that I've pointed to the precedent in the XML spec., do you think we can leave this alone, or should we add a reference to 5.1? Thanks, ht [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-xml-proc-profiles-20120124/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#wf-entdeclared [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#proc-types -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 14:29:34 UTC