Re: XSLT Component

On 2/1/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
>
> / Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
> | On 1/31/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
> |> A smart implementation can do the right thing a choose the right
> |> processor.  I did that in smallx in that XSLT 1.0 was handled by my
> version
> |> of  XT and XSLT 2.0 was handled by saxon.
> |
> | I agree.
> |
> | I just have some doubts about the warning mechanism. I am referring
> | to: "An implementations are allowed to use and XSLT 2.0 processor to
> | run an XSLT 1.0 transformation but a warning must be issued". I would
> | prefer, like Norm suggested, to have an optional parameter that the
> | pipeline author can set to say that he really wants to use an 1.0
> | engine or a 2.0 engine, whatever the version attribute in the
> | stylesheet says. In most cases pipeline authors won't need to worry
> | about this parameter and everything will work for them as expected.
>
> I think this introduces a new kind of parameter. While we've been
> saying that parameters passed to the xslt component are exposed to the
> processor, this would be a parameter that was consumed by the pipeline
> and not exposed. Do we really want to go there?
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh
> XML Standards Architect
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>


-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics