RE: [XSLT2.0] IBM-XSLT-109: Typed data and backwards compatibility

If you can suggest a better wording, please do. I don't quite follow
what you're saying about "the source of the problem". 

I have to say I'm not comfortable with section 4.4. I think the section
is basically passing the buck to the implementor. I think we need to
look at this again and see if we can do better. It's tricky because of
our decision that we don't define how trees get constructed, but I think
we should have a defined mapping of DTD-validated documents to the data
model that we at least recommend to implementors, rather than "merely
pointing out some of the consequences of the decision".

Michael Kay


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry Zongaro
> Sent: 19 February 2004 16:52
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [XSLT2.0] IBM-XSLT-109: Typed data and backwards 
> compatibility
> 
> 
> 
> [With apologies that these comments are coming in after the 
> end of the 
> Last Call comment period.]
> 
> Section 4.4
> 
> The second paragraph states, "In general, creating type 
> annotations based 
> on DTD attribute types is likely to create some backwards 
> compatibility 
> problems."  In reality, the backwards compatibility issues 
> are caused by 
> the fact that XSLT accesses typed data, rather than being 
> caused by DTD's. 
>  This should be rephrased to correctly characterize the source of the 
> problem.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Henry
> [Speaking on behalf of reviewers from IBM.]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Henry Zongaro      Xalan development
> IBM SWS Toronto Lab   T/L 969-6044;  Phone +1 905 413-6044
> mailto:zongaro@ca.ibm.com
>

Received on Friday, 20 February 2004 18:25:04 UTC