- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 10:12:17 +0100
- To: "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Innovimax SARL writes: > The one where I want to make an library that could be used, by someone > who asked for p:psvi-required or not > > I want for the case where the caller asks for p:psvi-required to > validate between each steps that looses PSVI > > I also want for the case the caller don't asks for p:psvi required TO > NOT validate between each steps OK, following your next message I understand better. I think this is mixing two different things. Validating between steps in a library pipeline has no impact on whether or not the calling pipeline sees PSVI properties on the output of that pipeline. The only reason I can see for a library to offer a pipeline that does or does not validate between steps is so a user can choose whether they want pervasive integrity checking or not. And that's best controlled by an option. Having said that I guess this raises a more general question, about access to all three of the major global/inherited 'context setting' switches, namely psvi-required, xpath-version and, perhaps less likely to be of interest, ignore-inline-prefixes. But I don't see any compelling use cases, and so I think this falls under the 'no new feature' ban. So, net-net: no action required, in my opinion. 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) iD8DBQFIK/50kjnJixAXWBoRAghLAJ41lgbcv5vtOO+2oId0hpuQ0ufe6wCcCZzT R1taH38J1Vf1T4UEfzwhpfQ= =Pwc0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 09:13:06 UTC