W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org > August 2002

RE: XML 1.1 Last Call Comments from the XSL WG

From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:26:04 +0200
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E621060453DAD4@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
Cc: pgrosso@arbortext.com, mark.scardina@oracle.com, w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org, www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org

> Kay, Michael scripsit:
> > Are you saying that normalization should be done when producing a 
> > final result tree from the intermediate result trees, or are you 
> > saying it should be done when serializing the final result tree?
> Either, but I meant the latter.
> The normalization constraints apply only to actual XML 
> documents used in
> interchange.   What a program does internally to itself is 
> not constrained.
> It is up to the XSL WG whether to require normalization 
> internally (but I personally recommend against it); what 
> matters is that when you generate an XML 1.1 document, you 
> ensure that it is normalized.

I'm a little concerned that when you run two transformations in tandem, you
will get different results when the result of the first transformation is
passed directly to the second as a tree, from when it is serialized and
re-parsed. We have always had the principle that parse(serialize(tree)) is a

To me, normalization and serialization are separate operations and I think
it might be a mistake to couple them.

Michael Kay
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 06:26:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:13:20 UTC