- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:55:07 +0000
- 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