W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > November 2008

Re: XSLT 2 and xsl:result-document

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:55:07 +0000
Message-ID: <711a73df0811270955u1b5f0f1ej8f323af01c5f131f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

2008/11/27 Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>:
> Toman_Vojtech@emc.com writes:
>>
>> Just a question: How does exsl:document relate to this?
>
> Good question. On the one hand, it's not clear how much we can say
> about extensions, but in this case, I think that they should be
> treated just like xsl:result-documents in XSLT 2.0.
>
> Which I think is fine except that we need to soften the statement
> about the secondary result port in the XSLT 1.0 case.
>
> Right now it says:
>
>  If XSLT 1.0 is used, an empty sequence of documents MUST appear on
>  the secondary port.
>
> I think we should reword that to:
>
>  If XSLT 1.0 is used, an empty sequence of documents will appear on
>  the secondary port, unless extension elements or functions are used
>  to write secondary results.

Possibly dangerous precedence Norm?
How to cater for all possible extensions?

If extensions are mentioned in the standard, fine.
Otherwise it's what I (or anyone) can do? IMHO no
place for such software in a standard... rec?


regards




-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2008 17:55:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:26 UTC