RE: [XSLT2.0] 21.1 Basic XSLT Processor

Thanks for the comment. 

It seems (to me personally) to be a reasonable suggestion. I'm not far how
we would want to take it though - for example would this also apply to types
in the "as" attribute of xsl:variable, to types in "cast" or "instance of"
expression, and so on? I think that one might not want this behaviour by
default.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Carlisle
> Sent: 17 December 2003 11:30
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [XSLT2.0] 21.1 Basic XSLT Processor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I'm happy to see that schema support is not mandatory 
> in XSLT, I'm a little concerned that it appears impossible to 
> write a stylesheet for a schema aware processor that falls 
> back gracefully on a basic one.
> 
> XSLT has always had quite good support for forwards and 
> backwards compatible behaviour and run-time testing for (and avoidance
> of) non-implemented extensions.
> 
> However
> 
> 
>   [ERR XT1660] A basic XSLT processor must signal a static 
> error if the
>   stylesheet includes an [xsl:]type attribute, or an 
> [xsl:]validation or
>   default-validation attribute with a value other than strip. 
> 
> seems to mean that I can't go
> 
> <xsl:when test="system-property('xsl:is-schema-aware')">
> ... xsl:validation ...
> <xsl:otherwise>
>   ... just relax ....
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be possible for a basic processor to simply 
> ignore schema-import and then have run time rather than 
> static errors if any schema specific features are encountered?
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star 
> Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more 
> information on a proactive anti-virus service working around 
> the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk 
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 11:34:15 UTC