- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 15:24:34 +0200
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <546c6c1c0805080624p5e2b7af9mb7eed19376d05217@mail.gmail.com>
Henri, Can you give one or two use cases for psvi-available() ? Mohamed On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > 1) The functionality provided by the 'psvi-required' attribute is > perfectly reasonable and self-contained, and it should be retained > unchanged. If I want to write pipelines which simple won't work > (statically) when a processor doesn't support the PSVI, that's what > I'll use. > > 2) I am unconvinced that we need to provide a means to tell processors > which do support the PSVI whether or not they need to do so when > executing a particular pipeline. That feels like an > product-specific optimisation to me, and as such _finally_ gives me > an example of a realistic use for <pipeinfo> -- a product is free > do define a <pipeinfo> child which can be inserted before > e.g. validate steps to say, in effect, "I do/don't care about the > PSVI". > > I'd rather wait until we see if such annotations turn out to be > provided, and what they look like, before trying to add something > along those lines into the language. > > 3) Having said that, I think it _does_ make sense to provide a means > for pipeline authors to do something at runtime depending on PSVI > support. But I think the minimum necessary to declare victory is > just psvi-available(), which if true means the processor claims > it's passing PSVI information along. No granularity or locality is > implied, that is, the value should be the same at all times/places > within a given episode. > > 4) Wrt to the amount of support required, I think we say PSVI support > implies two things: > > a) All PSVI properties produced on the output of a step MUST be > available to the steps which take that output as one of their > inputs; > > b) Implementations SHOULD preserve PSVI properties across steps > insofar as that is consistent with step semantics. It is > implementation-defined what PSVI properties it supports overall, > and what PSVI properties are lost by what steps. > > ht > - -- > Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of > Edinburgh > Half-time member of W3C Team > 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 > Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk > URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/<http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/%7Eht/> > [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged > spam] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFIIvwTkjnJixAXWBoRAh8pAJ94gJoZHwfkOdnFqQD7+SNMIii+FwCcDTD0 > EsHyrgpuX4F/UI4LZQLszNs= > =Avzk > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 13:25:17 UTC