Re: Updated public XSL (FO) Disposition of Comments document

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 [email protected].
>>
>> 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