RE: VariableReferences in patterns in XSLT 1.0

It's always difficult to say why a WG made a particular decision, and I
wasn't a member of the WG at the time, but it this case the decision is
documented in James Clark's message to me of 15 Sep 1999:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/1999JulSep/0072.html

Both the spec itself, and this note, are clear that the ban on variable
references applies only to match patterns appearing in xsl:template and
xsl:key, and not to patterns used in xsl:number.

As I expect you are aware, this restriction has been lifted in XSLT 2.0.

Michael Kay



> -----Original Message-----
> From: zongaro@ca.ibm.com [mailto:zongaro@ca.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 23 October 2002 15:56
> To: xsl-editors@w3.org
> Subject: VariableReferences in patterns in XSLT 1.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
>      I have a question about XSLT 1.0.
> 
>      A number of Xalan developers have debated on more than 
> one occasion 
> the intent of the Working Group when it framed the text in 
> Section 5.3 [1] 
> that prohibits VariableReferences from appearing in the 
> Pattern that is 
> the value of the match attribute of an xsl:template element, 
> and the text 
> in Section 12.2 [2] that prohibits VariableReferences from 
> appearing in 
> the Pattern that is the value of the match attribute or the 
> Expression 
> that is the value of the use attribute of an xsl:key element.
> 
>      Was it the Working Group's intention that 
> VariableReferences should 
> be prohibited from appearing in all Patterns?  If so, the 
> same restriction 
> would be required in Section 7.7 [3] for the value of the 
> count attribute 
> of the xsl:number element.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Henry
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#section-Defining-Template-Rules
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#key
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#number
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Henry Zongaro      Xalan development
> IBM SWS Toronto Lab   Tie Line 969-6044;  Phone (905) 413-6044
> mailto:zongaro@ca.ibm.com
> 
>

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 12:59:18 UTC