- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:46:25 -0600
- To: (wrong string) Éric Bischoff <e.bischoff@noos.fr>
- Cc: xsl-editors@w3.org
At 09:20 2003 02 22 +0100, Éric Bischoff wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Le Saturday 22 February 2003 00:01, Paul Grosso a écrit: >> The public XSL (FO) Disposition of Comments document at >> http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/2003/01/FO-DoC >> has just been updated with responses to your comments. >> If you are unsatisfied with the response, please feel >> free to post another comment to xsl-editors@w3.org. >> >> Thank you for your interest in XSL FO and for your >> patience as we work our way through the comments. >> >> Paul Grosso >> for XSL FO Subgroup > >Hi Paul, > >Nice compilation Work. > >However I'm still unhappy with the comments of one of my contribs : > >================================================== >No the erratum is correct. The quotes around the "string" are optional and >have been left out in the example. The enclosing single quotes ensure that >the value is interpreted as a string literal by the expression language. Note >that "url" is not a function, but a piece of syntax borrowed from CSS2. >================================================== > >Okay with that, but it contradicts the spec then (perharps it's just a bug in >the spec) : > >At > http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice7.html#src >one can read : >================================================== > 7.28.7 "src" > > XSL Definition: > > Value: > <uri-specification> | inherit >================================================== > >Please note that it does not accept a <string>, but an <uri-specification> Per http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice5.html#section-N8794-Property-Datatypes a <uri-specification> is "A sequence of characters that is "url(", followed..." and <string> is "a sequence of characters". Therefore, the spec is saying that <uri-specification> is a subset of the <string> datatype. I agree that the spec could be clearer in the area of property datatypes, but I hope my explanation clarifies how our response to your comment doesn't contradict the spec. paul
Received on Saturday, 22 February 2003 17:47:18 UTC