- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:28:17 +0000
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Alex, Alex Milowski wrote: > I think we stop at the level where the XProc processor has the > QName value (with a possible prefix) and supplies the appropriate > in-scope namespaces. That is the component and it uses > that pair to evaluate a XML name--which is a namespace name > and local name pair. At that point, it has everything it needs > to configure an implementation technology (e.g. Saxon 8's XSLT > 2.0 engine). I agree. > Our component terminology might be a little bit confusing in > that there typically is a "configuration wrapper" layer that > takes the information provided by the XProc processor and > configures an actual implementation technology. In the > case of XSLT 2.0, it would be instantiating and configuring > the XSLT engine and transformation. Yes: that was the distinction I was making between the "component" (the wrapper) and the "processor" (the actual implementation of the technology). Do I take it you agree with me that we can get away with just having a warning in the spec about the fact that different namespace associations might be in scope when an option value is specified (e.g. in the invocation of a pipeline) to when the option value is provided to the component (at the invocation of a step). Or do you have an alternative solution to that problem? Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 14:28:23 UTC