- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:51:30 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ht writes: > In the RelaxNG grammar as published, in fact _ignorable elements_ are > only allowed in subpipelines. In the DTD as published, they are only > allowed in the prologue of p:pipeline and p:pipeline-library. I guess > _neither_ of these is correct, but what _is_ correct? > > Despite the trickiness of defining this, I think it really should be > "as a child of container elements, or of p:pipeline-library, at _any_ > position". I'm going to rewrite the DTD and XSDL schema to implement > this. Sigh. Implementing this makes me wonder again what's really right -- if we do what I say above, since an extension element can function either appear in the prologue or in the subpipeline of containers, that sort of implies that it can function as a crypto-declaration or crypto-binding as well as a crypto-step. If so, why not in the prologue of atomic steps? What do we imagine extension elements are _for_ now that we have a documentation sandbox, anyway? Do we have _any_ putative examples or use cases to help with this? ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, 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 really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGlMRCkjnJixAXWBoRAjKeAJ9oUgnqT5w1LJ0Z2FYnqxRutOenLgCfantp JbDIp6HSar8sqr/fHf2PXuc= =kxcl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 11:51:38 UTC