Re: XProc Minutes: 8 Apr 2010

HI,

I know that I have not participated in a while, and that I
am not au courant with XML processors.
Even so, I hope that you will accept my comments about the
draft that Norm and Henry have 
put forward.


I was hoping for a bit more.

I expected a pipeline that prescribed an order for a core
set of XML processors, starting with well-formed xml
processing and followed by (in some order) GRDDL
interpretation, entity expansion, id validation, xml
validation, namespace management, xinclude expansion,
schemata validation and so on. I expected to have a model
that prescribed or described when and where decryption and
digital signature processing occur. I expected that for each
step, the spec would provide reasoning for the position in
the order as relates to building the infoset. I expected the
pipeline, or library of pipelines, to provide for the
ability to snif a document to determine whether it is
eligible for processing, either by way of processing
instructions a la XSLT, or through well-understood info
items such as the GRDDL signature. 

I apologize for not always using the correct vocabulary, but
I think that most of you understand what I am suggesting. I
could understand if you told me that the resources are not
available to do this for V1. But, conceptually, are my
expectations too great? 

Regards,

Murray


P.S. I may be mistaken, but I think that the requirement to
expand all XIncludes and to read all external markup
declarations may be in conflict with GRDDL. Please note that
I never agreed with GRDDL on this point, but I am still
obliged to point out the conflict. There are at least two
schools of thought on entity/xinclude expansion and I think
that the XML Processing Model needs to be able to express
those approaches as branches in the pipeline. Comparing the
results of the branches is left as an exercise for the
reader. :-)

Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 20:00:58 UTC