- 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