Hi Ginnie. Thanks for your comments.
Virginia Wray wrote: > Hi Jack - > > Here's feedback on the functional spec. > > > 1.4.3 > > Would it be appropriate to mention some of the xml parsers that fit > these dependencies? That was my immediate question when I read the > first paragraph in this section. When I google xml parsers, there are > a lot of them out there. ... but when I google "xml parsers opensolaris" my XML parsing page comes up first :) I also checked a dev repo and only found libxml2 and lxml in various flavors for different languages (C, C++, python). > > Include a pointer to or describe what the Manifest Inter-File > Organization effort is (perhaps in the Definition of Terms). Someone > outside of our group might not know what it is. OK > > 1.6 > > I would add the following definitions: > > Distribution Constructor > lxml > Python Above: OK > Manifest Inter-File Organization Defined in section 1.4.1 > 2009.06 (I don't think it's good to assume that everyone reading the > doc will know what that means) Changed its reference to "the 2009.06 release" to clarify to the reader that it is a previous SW release. > > > 2. Functional Overview > > 1. At the end of the first paragraph, you repeat the comment about > semantic validation. I think since you mentioned this at the beginning > in the Scope of Product, you don't really need to repeat it here. OK. > > 2. In the second paragraph, the first sentence talks about data > modeled in memory as a tree. This implies a requirement for a specific > type of parsing model that might need to be explicitly stated. It's OK as is. > > 3. In the second sentence, beginning " The parser will take a path..." > I would add after that "using an XPath format as input" or something > to that affect, if that is the intended meaning. The way it is worded > is confusing. OK. Reworded. > Also in the second paragraph, where the differences from 2009.06 are > listed, I don't think it adds anything to note that this is different > functionality than that found in 2009.06. OK. Since I reworded the paragraph, I say these things there anyway now. Removed. > > > 2.1 > I wouldn't repeat the last paragraph about the dynamic default > setting/semantic validation, for the same reason I mentioned previously. OK, removed. > > 5.1.3 > > The last sentence starting with XXX....does that need to be deleted? > > 6. > > What about a use case for the remote consumer scenario. The DC scenario (6.3) represents that. I now make that clearer in the section title. Document has been updated and is posted at: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/XML_Parsing/xml_1_func_spec.3.pdf Thanks, Jack > > > > > >
