- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:39:22 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
In 2.8.1, the definition of the context node should include what happens if there's no default readable port, or the context is empty (which I think we said would mean that a document node with no child was used as the context). In 2.8.1, I think that using the in-scope namespaces on the element is fine, isn't it? In what way is it insufficient? In 2.8.2, the definition of the in-scope namespaces contradicts the definition in 5.7.3 Option and Parameter Namespace Bindings. This needs to be resolved one way or the other. (And I think that this *is* known to be insufficient.) In 2.8.3.1, the value of "p:version": constraining this to xs:decimal is too much; I think it should be a string (actually xs:token), so that people can have versions like "1.0a" or "2.3.13". In 2.8.3.3, I think the definition of p:iteration-count should be reworded to make it more declarative (and less procedural), so that parallel processors are possible. So instead of "the number of iterations that have occured", say "the position of the document being processed in the sequence of documents being processed". Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 23 July 2007 10:38:14 UTC