Re: xml literal and xslt

At 12:53 10/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
[...]

>7: What's the other path?
>=========================
>
>If the above proposal looks too heavy, I would suggest dropping qnames in
>attribute values from the level of ambition, and merely trying to not
>prevent implementations from treating unusual namespaces unusually. We would
>then stick with "Literal" and "Resource" as the only two values of
>parseType. Vagueness is possible about precisely what string is produced. A
>more limited interoperablity could be achieved by concentrating the spec on
>the equaity of literals.
>
>I am happy to produce a second proposal based around that path.


One thing to bear in mind is DAML's requirements.  Should we consider cases
where a daml:unambiguousProperty and a daml property with cardinality
constraints take parseType=Literal values.

Brian