Re: New XProc editor's WG reflects latest proposals

Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com> writes:
> On second thought, in addition to that... what happens with unknown elements
> (steps or instructions*)? This is still not clear. If I recall correctly, a
> new dynamic error was going to happen. Where's the paragraph about that?

With the introduction of use-when, the WG backed off making unknown
elements from the XProc namespace a dynamic error. Given that you have
to add some sort of conditionality to make things work at all, you can
use use-when to make a 1.0 processor never see the unknown elements.

> * By that, I mean p:serialization, p:xpath-context and p:document like
> elements. Let me note again that (I for one think) these elements deserve a
> formal qualification. I'd even go as far as to suggest a function for their
> detection (especially useful with p:use-when). Say, p:element-available(),
> which would be similar to p:step-available(), only it would also detect
> "instructions" and "extension instructions". And/or there could be
> p:instruction-available(), which would only detect "instruction" elements
> (i.e. not steps). I don't feel strong for the exact term "instructions" -
> "miscellaneous" is also fine for example, but an existence of such a
> qualification would still be beneficial.

It seems to me that testing for the spec version is sufficient.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The average man, who does not know what
http://nwalsh.com/            | to do with his life, wants another one
                              | which will last forever.--Anatole France