Re: Towards a consensus draft (urgent)

/ Alex Milowski <> was heard to say:
| On 9/10/07, Norman Walsh <> wrote:
|> Dear Working Group,
|> Please review the latest editor's draft (or at least sections 2.2 and
|> the new 2.6.1, as well as p:label-elements) and *if you do not believe
|> that we can go to Last Call with this draft* please *comment in email*
|> as soon as possible.
| None of my proposal on having the steps "do the right thing" is in
| this draft.  If
| we can't (or don't want) to mandate that steps do the right thing, at least we
| should add them as "should/may" or example of avoiding namespace
| fixup.

The whole point of 2.6.1 is to say globally, in one place, that all
relevant fixup may be performed between each step and must be
performed when documents are serialized.

I think that all of the specific changes that you proposed for individual
steps are covered by the statements now present in 2.6.1:

   ...In particular, the information corresponding to the [Infoset]
   properties [attributes], [base URI], [children], [local name],
   [namespace name], [normalized value], [owner], and [parent] *must* be

   The information corresponding to [prefix], [in-scope namespaces],
   [namespace attributes], and [attribute type] *should* be preserved,
   with changes to the first three only as required for namespace
   fixup. In particular, processors are encouraged to take account of
   prefix information in creating new namespace bindings, to minimize
   negative impact on prefixed names in content.

bearing in mind that namespace fixup says:

   [Definition: Some steps can produce XML documents which have no
   direct serialization (because they include nodes with conflicting
   or missing namespace declarations, for example). To produce a
   serializable XML document, the XProc processor must sometimes add
   additional namespace nodes, perhaps even renaming prefixes, to
   satisfy the constraints of Namespaces in XML. This process is
   referred to as namespace fixup.]

The advantage of these global statements over more specific ones is
twofold: first, they apply to all of the changes that are necessary,
even ones that may accidentally be left out a specific, per-step list
of requirements and second, they apply not only to our steps but to
implementation- and user-defined steps as well.

| We can't quite go to last call without addressing this.
| p:add-attribute had a statement
| about adding a namespace declaration and that is now labeled "FIXME".   Up until
| now, no one has had issue with that sentence.

Oversight. I should have deleted that sentence. It's now covered by

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <> | Even while a thing is in the act of            | coming into existence, some part of it
                              | has already ceased to be.--Marcus
                              | Aurelius

Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 17:06:52 UTC