Re: Towards a consensus draft (urgent)

On 9/10/07, Murray Maloney <> wrote:
> At 01:14 PM 9/10/2007 -0700, Alex Milowski wrote:
> >On 9/10/07, Norman Walsh <> 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

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics

Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 01:05:17 UTC