"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes: > 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? Well. I see your point, but in this case the exsl:document extension is both quasi-standard and widely deployed. And there's no compelling reason for the MUST that exists in the current spec, it was just the editor being overzealous, I think. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Wandering in a vast forest at night, I http://nwalsh.com/ | have only a faint light to guide me. A | stranger appears and says to me: "My | friend, you should blow out your candle | in order to find your way more | clearly." This man is a theologian.-- | DiderotReceived on Friday, 28 November 2008 20:48:39 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 28 November 2008 20:48:39 GMT