- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 19:09:15 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Further to action 1 from our telcon of 8 May, herewith a proposal for what we do about PSVI support. 1) There's a system property called p:psvi-supported, which tells you whether the implementation supports the PSVI to the minimal level required (see below) or not. Its value is global, i.e. _not_ sensitive to where/when you ask about it. (Already in Editors' Draft of 8 May [1]) 2) There's a step annotation psvi-required, which can appear on p:declare-step, p:pipeline or p:library. In the first two cases, it signals that the step being declared/defined requires PSVI support, and that a dynamic error should be raised if that step is ever about to be executed by a processor for which p:psvi-supported is false. When psvi-required appears on p:library with value 'true', it is as if all its p:pipeline and p:declare-step children (note, _not_ decendents) which do not themselves specify a value for psvi-required get the value 'true' for it. (Already in Editors' Draft of 8 May, but semantics needs tweaking to bring in to line with the above) 3) Some information needs to be added to section A.3 Infoset Conformance about what PSVI support means. Something along the following lines: To support the PSVI a) Implementations MUST transmit faithfully any PSVI properties produced on step outputs to the steps whose inputs are connected to them. b) If the p:iteration-source of a p:for-each or the p:viewport-source of a p:viewport is connected to an output which includes PSVI properties, those properties MUST also be included in the documents presented on the special 'current' port defined by those steps. [Note about validity of document element in viewport case?] c) If an output of a compound step is bound to an output which includes PSVI properties, those properties MUST also be present on the output of the compound step, _except_ for the output of p:viewport, which MUST NOT contain any PSVI properties. d) If an implementation supports XPath 2.0, construction of the data model with respect to which evaluation of XPath expressions and match patterns is carried out SHOULD, when it is based on a document from an output which contains PSVI properties, take advantage of such PSVI information as much as possible. e) Except as specified in (a)--(d) above, and in the descriptions herein of the p:xslt, p:validate-with-xml-schema and p:xquery steps, implementations MUST NOT include PSVI properties in the outputs of the steps defined in this specification. It is *implementation-defined* what PSVI properties, if any, are produced by extension steps. 4) Add brief statements to p:xslt and p:xquery that it is *implementation-defined* what PSVI properties they output. I think that's it. ht [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html - -- 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) iD8DBQFIKdlLkjnJixAXWBoRAoNVAJ9iViqFTwM90dWjRERnLNwSFle2UACfSNU6 TcqGk/1XtnkTrsEYyf7d3Sg= =B00X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:09:48 UTC