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

Re: XSLT 2 and xsl:result-document

From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:32:20 +0100
Message-ID: <ebaca5bf0811291132r6eca3d0embc82571297e4c14e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

2008/11/29 Dave Pawson wrote:
> 2008/11/29 Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>:

>>  But instead of telling about extensions (besides, you don't tell
>> about XProc extensions, but XSLT extensions...) you can maybe relax
>> the MUST and tell it is implementation -defined or -dependent.

> Which is what XSLT does? Except XSLT has no reason to mention
> extensions? I.e. they are always implementation dependent?

  I would say that the situation is different.  XSLT 1.0 does mention
extensions, and even define two kinds of extensions (functions and
instructions) and sets some rules for them.  But XSLT 1.0 does not
mention final result trees, because the result in XSLT 1.0 is the
result tree (only one.)

  So to summarize: XSLT 2.0 has (possibly) several result trees while
XSLT 1.0 has only one.  So the first thing in the draft was to say
that "in XSLT 1.0 additional result trees MUST be the empty sequence."
 But well-established XSLT 1.0 extensions (for instance from EXSLT,
Xalan and Saxon 6) provide a similar semantic for XSLT 1.0 as well.

  So clearly, the MUST has to be removed.  But I think that mentioning
XSLT extensions in XProc sounds over-specified.

-- 
Florent Georges
http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Saturday, 29 November 2008 19:32:56 UTC

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