- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:37:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Ugh.. an XSLT extension-based implementation of XInclude - which relies on exsl:function no less. Not very portable. My thoughts are that it doesn't address the issue since the solution is XSLT implementation dependent. If the spec is meant to give guidance on this sort of thing I would think it would make better sense to propose that in the absense of a pipeline language, the implementation can do what it wishes (some implementations *will* be able to resolve XIncludes without prompting, *before* applying an XSLT transform). Otherwise, a pipeline can be explicit about the XML processing. Consider an XML parser and XSLT implementation that already handles XInclusion by default, explicitely implementing the XInclude resolution in this way would clash with such a scenario as there will be no way for the nominated transform to determine if the XIncludes had been expanded already. On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Murray Maloney wrote: > I understood that one could not do XInclude processing in an XSLT > Transformation. > I received this pointer from a member of the XML Proc WG. Does this address > the open issue? > > > http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl/sect2/include.html#d11058e170 Chimezie Ogbuji Lead Systems Analyst Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Cleveland Clinic Foundation 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26 Cleveland, Ohio 44195 Office: (216)444-8593 ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 17:38:06 UTC