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: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:45:23 -0400
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
Message-ID: <87lm6rm48s.fsf@nwalsh.com>

/ "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com> was heard to say:
| 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
| no-op. 
| To me, normalization and serialization are separate operations and I think
| it might be a mistake to couple them.

I think you might be right. And it might be the case that XSLT users
will need/want (at user option, perhaps) the ability to construct result
trees that are normalized "in memory".

However, I don't see how that issue is related to the XML Core WG. The
interface between the XSL and Core WGs (as I see it) is a document
labelled XML 1.0 or XML 1.1. The XSLT implementors in-memory
representation of a document is neither. Heck, it might not even be
well formed XML!

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | There is always some accident in the best of
XML Standards Architect | things, whether thoughts or expressions or
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | deeds. The memorable thought, the happy
                        | expression, the admirable deed are only
                        | partly yours.--Thoreau
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 10:46:12 UTC

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