- 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