- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
- cc: <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 DPawson@rnib.org.uk wrote: CMN-old > I would like to propose that we remove the section XML > Grammars, and The > Scope Of XAG. DP With the implication that applicability replace scope? CMN Yes CMN-old > Applicability. > > In principle, every checkpoint in these guidelines should be > met by all XML > applications. In some cases, particular checkpoints will be > "Not Applicable". > For example, XSLT [ref] specifies transformations, and > doesn't normally ahve > a visual representation. DP Which implies that if an instance or class of document doesn't have a visual representation XAG is inapplicable? CMN No - there are checkpoints that don't apply and checkpoints that do - whether something is oriented towards representation for a user or not isn't a criteria for whether it should meet XAG as a whole, only for what it does with regard to individual checkpoints. CMN-old > > [[Note: It is an open question whether there should be a way > to represent > XSLT to authors. If so, then checkpoints dealing with constructing an > outline, providing multi-modal presentations, etc., probably > do apply]] DP Issue: Anything not in the XSLT namespace is taken as literal content, so this is one occasion when namespaces don't work. CMN I don't understand the issue. Can you please explain it a bit more? cheers Chaals
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 05:13:49 UTC