RE: AssocSS issue 15

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 July 15 11:29
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AssocSS issue 15
> 
> ht writes:
> 
> > Further to our discussion on the XML Core WG telcon today, I propose
a
> > modification of this, as suggested by Paul:
> >
> >      [1] StyleSheetPI ::= '<?xml-stylesheet' PIBody '?>'
> >                               [XSSC: XML PI]
> >
> >      [1a] PIBody      ::= (S PseudoAtt)* S?
> >
> >  Somewhere we then have this:
> >
> >    [XSSC: a StyleSheetPI *must* be an XML processing instruction
> >    (ref. REC-xml#NT-PI)]
> 
> OK, so in the _subsequent_ discussion, we were leaning towards
> approaching this problem differently, by appeal to contextualisation
> in terms of where this spec. sits in the picture of XML processor and
> application provided by the XML spec. itself.

And there was followup email discussing details of the wording.

But back to the actual productions, my understanding is that our
current plan is to have a production [1] (with only one right hand
side) and a production [1a] something like what Henry shows above.

However, to respond to Simon's issue about white space, I'm thinking
we could do something like:

     [1] StyleSheetPI ::= '<?xml-stylesheet' S PIBody '?>'

     [1a] PIBody      ::= PseudoAtt (S PseudoAtt)* S?

This does match a smaller set of PIs than before.  In particular
<?xml-stylesheet?> used to match production [1] but would no longer 
match my suggested production [1], and <?xml-stylesheet ?> used to
match production [1] and [1a] as Henry writes above but would no
longer match my suggestion productions [1] and [1a].  On the other
hand, neither of those PIs are syntactically valid xml-stylesheet PIs 
anyway because the href pseudo-attribute is #REQUIRED, so it doesn't
bother me that they no longer are matched by productions [1] and [1a].

Henry (and others), what do you think?

paul

Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 15:24:55 UTC