- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:27:34 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87tzs3xird.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: |> Norm: I want to know what stands between us and last call. |> ... Please be prepared to enumerate the issues you know of next week. | | The things I think still need to be done are: | | 1. Specify the base URIs of outputs, and provide some mechanisms for base URI | access and resolution [1] Yes, we definitely need to address this. Perhaps p:add-xml-base-attributes and p:make-uris-absolute are sufficient, but I wonder if we won't also want a p:base-uri() function. | 2. Better specification of the environment used to evaluate XPath expressions | (a) in XProc and (b) passed as arguments to the built-in steps. In particular | (i) context position and size, (ii) variable bindings (iii) namespace bindings. | | 5.7.3 Option and Parameter Namespace Bindings goes part of the way, but doesn't | describe what happens if the option/parameter gets set from an input document | (e.g. an attribute value). I'm working on (i) and (ii). Do you have suggestions for (iii)? | [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jun/0118.html) Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The firmest line that can be drawn upon http://nwalsh.com/ | the smoothest paper is still jagged | edges if seen through a microscope. | This does not matter until important | deductions are made on the supposition | that there are no jagged edges.--Samuel | Butler (II)
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 13:29:23 UTC