- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:05:10 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 9/10/07, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com> wrote: > > At 01:14 PM 9/10/2007 -0700, Alex Milowski wrote: > >On 9/10/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > > > > I don't believe there was working group consensus to require that all > > > steps produce only fixed up documents. I think it would be better if > > > there had been, but there wasn't. > > > >Obviously, I agree. Anyone else? > > I agree. > > Although, if pressed, I might say that top-level steps had to produce > WF and namespace-fixed documents. This might allow nested steps > to mess things up so long as the outer step's output is clean. Well, that's a count of 3 (or 2.5). In order to move things along, what would make me "comfortable" would be that we have the general language that Norm has put forth and that we require *our* steps to output "infosets" that don't require namespace fixup. I'd be OK with leaving that as "implementation defined" but we could easily have a non-normative appendix suggesting ways in which you might go about it. Since such text would be non-normative, it doesn't have to be 100% correct. I think we can get very close with the proposal I sent out earlier and I'd be fine with that being a non-normative suggestion. -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 01:05:17 UTC