RE: feature request.

You're right (sorry). There must be an <xsl:fallback/>. I was thinking of
top-level elements.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk] 
> Sent: 18 June 2002 11:16
> To: Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
> Cc: DPawson@rnib.org.uk; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: feature request.
> 
> 
> 
> > There is a neat trick you can use for this: just declare your 
> > namespace as an extension namespace.
> 
> Oh. I use this trick a lot but I always throw in an empty 
> xsl:fallback element as well I thought this was needed and 
> was surprised by your comment
> 
> > The XSLT processor is required to ignore extension 
> instructions in a 
> > namespace that it does not recognize.
> 
> the XSLT 1.0 spec seems a bit obscure here.
> 
> 14.1 says
> 
>  An XSLT processor must not signal an error merely because a 
> template  contains an extension element for which no 
> implementation is  available.
> 
> However the preceding sentence is
> 
> 
>   When such an extension element is instantiated, then the XSLT
>   processor must perform fallback for the element as specified in [15
>   Fallback]. 
> 
> and fallback says:
> 
>   if the instruction element has one or more xsl:fallback 
> children, then
>   the content of each of the xsl:fallback children must be 
> instantiated
>   in sequence; otherwise, an error must be signaled.  
> 
> I have always read this as saying if there are no 
> xsl;fallback elements then the "otherwise" clause implies 
> that an error will be signaled.
> 
> 
> David
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star 
> Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning 
> Service. For further information visit 
> http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or > alternatively call Star 
> Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
>

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 12:00:25 UTC