Re: [DM] BEA_006

David,

I am not sure I understand your answer.

Please let me concentrate on the issue that I think
will cause more trouble for the future: relaxing the
constraints associated with the document node.

According to this point I only see backwards compatibility issues,
not real requirements (XSLT could very easily enforce that
documents nodes have to obey Infoset rules).

With this respect we are in a dilemma: we are either
backwards compatibility with XSLT 1.0 or in compatibility
with XML itself and Infoset.

We did choose XSLT 1.0 and ignored XML itself and Infoset.

That's a strange choice, with unfortunate long term consequences.

Best regards,
Dana




On Feb 17, 2004, at 6:42 AM, David Carlisle wrote:

>
>   What is the rationale for supporting functionality beyond
>   the Infoset: e.g. documents with empty content, with multiple
>   element children, etc ?
>
> As Michael Kay has said, backward compatibility concerns should mean
> that removing this functionality is not even under consideration,
> however this feature is not only there for backward compatibility. It  
> is
> a useful (and much used) feature. There is a requirement on XSLT (and  
> any
> reasonable XML transformation language) to be able to construct
> external parsed entities as well as complete documents.
> Xpath models these using the same model of a root node (Xpath 1)
> (Document node in Xpath 2) but without the constraint that there need  
> be
> exactly one element child, and it similarly merges concepts of an xml
> declaration on a document and a text declaration on an external parsed
> entity, and models them both in the same way ie, doesn't  model them at
> all in the data model and generates them based on the same parameters  
> to
> the serialisation.
>
> 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, 18 February 2004 15:18:53 UTC