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

Éric Bischoff <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.org.w3c.xsl-editors
Message-ID <[email protected]>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le Saturday 22 February 2003 23:46, Paul Grosso a écrit:

> >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.

Well, a lot of other things are described directly or indirectly as "sequences 
of characters", including numbers (see the grammar productions). I don't 
think that '4.3' with quotes would be a valid <number> though.

Therefore, if <uri-specification> _is_ a subset of <string> as you say it, 
then in my honest opinion it should be explicitely said in the specification.

> 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.

Yes, it clarifies a lot, thank you.

PS It would have been much easier for most implementors to make url( ) a 
regular function that produces a <uri-specification>, and you're done. I am 
still puzzled by the unnecessary complexities of the spec.

- -- 
According to a recent survey, 82% of the citizens of the
European Union are against American planned invasion of Irak.
(EOS Gallup Europe, 15,080 people aged 15+, 21st to 27th January 2003)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE+WEKVfYJTRPWp6rkRAs3EAJwOEd0ZtHwz4isTWSfudXS6WgfFJACfSpOI
fWJwLrR7A2T38qFImmPGUXk=
=u+kf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.