Henry on XML Processing [was: XProc Minutes 7 May 2009]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Thursday, 2009 May 07 10:58
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XProc Minutes 7 May 2009
> 
> See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/05/07-minutes

>   14. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/elabInfoset/elabInfoset

Quoting:

 aside from the obligations imposed by the XML (and XML Namespace)
 recommendations themselves, what, if anything, ought to be done
 with a document whose media type tells you it's an XML document,
 before any application-specific processing is attempted? 

 . . .

 Since the specification of XML and the XML information set, a
 number of generic XML applications have been specified, in terms
 of functions from infosets to infosets, which arguably should
 (almost) always be implemented before any more specific processing
 is attempted.

 . . .

 The inventory of such 'generic' applications is small, and identifying
 its membership correctly is likely to be one of the hard parts of
 this project, but here are three candidates:

 XInclude 
 XML Encryption 
 XML Signature 

Leaving aside the fact that I'm surprised by the second two, what
about XML Base and xml:id?  Certainly, one can't do XInclude
properly without having done XML Base, right?  

And if the XInclude's xpointer attribute uses XPointer Framework
spec's Shorthand pointer, then certainly one cannot do XInclude
properly without havign done xml:id in the target document, right?

paul

p.s.  As just a comment on the exposition, the first time the word
"elaborated" is mentioned in the document body is in the title of
section 3 which no where else mentions it, so section 3 is clearly
not really about "the elaborated infoset" despite the mention in
the title.  Then the next mention is in the first sentence of
section 4 where is metions *avoiding* the process of elaboration,
a process that still hasn't been mentioned much less defined.
You have to read down to section 6 before you get to this.

Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 20:34:38 UTC