Re: non-XML characters in text nodes

Kay, Michael wrote:
> I'm not sure if you are trying to say that this is not clearly stated, or if
> you are saying that you disagree with the decision we have made.

Both. But you know what? Never mind.

I am just trying to figure out whether an implementation is allowed to have
non-XML characters in text nodes, and whether a function (any function) can
return non-XML characters in a "string"-type object. I'd like to think that a
"string", since it *is*, by definition, an xs:string, has no such leeway, but
apparently in XSLT-land the rules are relaxed.  What if the processor wants to
validate it and they find that it's not an xs:string? Do they throw an error
or do they discard the offending characters? If they don't validate it, then
they must leave them in, so this will throw off string lengths and may result
in malformed output. It's worse than disable-output-escaping, IMO. Leaving
something like this up to the implementation just seems like a way to
undermine interoperability.

But like I said, just forget it. I'm on record as having raised the issue as
both a user and an implementer, and you're on record as having blown it off.
Good enough for me. I'll deal with it.

> It appears that the meaning of the word "moot" is moot, in the sense that a
> lot of people seem to be using the word in the opposite sense to the Oxford
> Dictionary, which defines it as meaning "debateable". So I'm not actually
> sure what you mean.

Clearly we are divided by a common language. My usage of the adjective moot to
mean insignificant/irrelevant dates to the mid-1800s, according to
dictionary.com, and that definition (one of two) is confirmed by m-w.com.

   - Mike
____________________________________________________________________________
  mike j. brown                   |  xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/
  denver/boulder, colorado, usa   |  resume: http://skew.org/~mike/resume/

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 06:03:22 UTC