Re: XSLT20: matching-substring and non-matching-substring vs "optional"

* Jim Melton wrote:
>Would it be any better if the XSL WG had changed 
>the wording to "each element is optional"?  That seems clearer to me.

The whole document seems poorly written when it comes to content model
and content model error handling discussions. Most of the paragraph
under discussion is redundant with the content model description at the
beginning, it only adds one requirement. Similarily, the initial content
model description prohibits

  <xsl:analyze-string ...>
    <xsl:fallback .../>
    <xsl:matching-substring .../>

but this is missing from the prose. Therefore it would seem best if the
content model descriptions are updated to cover all requirements, and
any redundant discussion in the prose is removed. For this specific in-
stance, the existing paragraph

  [ERR XTSE1130] It is a static error if the xsl:analyze-string
  instruction contains neither an xsl:matching-substring nor an
  xsl:non-matching-substring element.

along with

  <!-- Content: (xsl:matching-substring?, xsl:non-matching-substring?,
                 xsl:fallback*) -->

already covers anything the paragraph states, so its best removed. I'm
assuming that documents with static errors are non-conforming. However,
I could also somehow live with replacing the paragraph with, e.g.,

  The xsl:analyze-string element must have a xsl:matching-substring
  or a xsl:non-matching-substring child element.

or, at the very least, "Both elements are optional, and" is removed from
the paragraph, as I originally suggested. But again, the excessive re-
dundancy in the document makes it very difficult to read. I don't think
your suggestion is an improvement.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 16:31:19 UTC