- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 15:00:14 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Walsh writes:
> By which you mean, you'll write
>
> <p:pipeline psvi-required="true">
> ...
>
> And any impl. that don't support PSVI annotations will simply refuse
> to execute it. Yes?
Yes.
> | 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.
>
> That's what I thought I wanted last week and I was convinced on the
> call that all I really wanted was psvi-supported(). Do you think
> that's no longer sufficient?
See example sent per Mohamed's request. . .
> | 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.
>
> I have mixed feelings. Consider p:delete. Does it make sense for that
> step to preserve PSVI properties on elements and attributes that it
> doesn't delete?
Good point. We could consider saying "Implementations MUST ensure the
accuracy of the PSVI properties they preserve. Since almost any
structural modifications may render any validation-related properties
inaccurate, implementations MAY discard all PSVI properties in the
output of structure-modifying steps (as an alternative to preserving
only those known to be unaffected)."
And "So, for example, it is implementation-defined whether a
PSVI-supporting processor preserves PSVI properties on the documents
passed to the subpipeline of p:viewport"
> Or maybe we could say that PSVI properites can only appear on the
> output of the validate steps, p:xslt, and p:xquery (and user-defined
> steps).
I'd hate to go there, but maybe we have no choice.
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/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIIwdukjnJixAXWBoRAkh3AJ4ksCtGbOQi0d80fSF7xnh7WogAVACfRCil
PDpqJCplvgEjHwYCZ2K/cp0=
=7aQx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 14:01:02 UTC