- 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