W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > October 2002

Re: XSL Errata document updated

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:43:45 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021025123344.03da4830@172.27.10.30>
To: www-xsl-fo@w3.org

At 18:11 2002 10 25 +0100, Dave Pawson wrote:

>At 17:27 25/10/2002, Paul Grosso wrote:
>>It is true that src="url('TH0317A.jpg')" would probably make
>>a better example.  I did not write this example, and I did
>>not notice this until you mentioned it.
>>
>>However, I believe src="'url(TH0317A.jpg)'" should also be 
>>valid.  The double quotes are just part of being an XML 
>>attribute, and then the single quotes make the attribute 
>>value a string.  The uri-specification datatype says it's 
>>a sequence of characters, so a string should be a valid 
>>value, and the quotes inside the url() part are optional.
>
>Compatibility with xslt and xpath Paul?
> (or at least less stress in moving from one to another)

I don't understand you here.


>- 1 to your example, since functions 
>are not in single quotes, content to functions
>is?
>e.g. "document('file.ext')"

url() isn't a function.  It is not listed in section 5.10.

The uri-specification data type says:
  A sequence of characters that is "url("...

but doesn't say that url() is a function.

I claim the expression 'url(xxx)'--when given as the value
of an XSL FO property--evaluates, according to the XSL FO
expression language rules, to the sequence of characters:
  url(xxx)
which is a valid uri-specification.

I'm just trying to interpret the spec, not stick up for it,
so don't tell me you don't like what it says--send those
messages to the comment list.

Only respond to me if you think my interpretation of what the 
spec says right now can be proven to be wrong using the words
of the spec.  

paul
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 13:45:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:06:10 GMT