- From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:34:11 -0000
- To: "'Colin Paul Adams'" <colin@colina.demon.co.uk>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Thank you for this comment. Personal response: The working group did think quite carefully about whether to allow processors to choose their own favourite point on the spectrum from a basic XSLT processor to a fully schema-aware processor, and decided that interoperability was best served by disallowing this. In practice, of course, there is no ban on anyone offering a processor that has two modes of operation: (a) as a conformant basic-level processor, and (b) as a non-conformant "basic plus selected bits of schema-awareness" processor. Although the formal comments period has expired, this comment will be added to the WG's agenda. Michael Kay # -----Original Message----- # From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments- # request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Colin Paul Adams # Sent: 29 February 2004 20:44 # To: public-qt-comments@w3.org # Subject: [XSLT 2.0] Conformance levels # # # I am somewhat peeved and the restrictions on a processor claiming # basic level conformance - specifically not being allowed to assign # type annotation to attributes other than xdt:untypedAtomic. # # This means, that having developed a processor to basic level # conformance, you cannot then develop it further towards full # schema-aware conformance, except in one fell swoop, as if you # implement on a step-by-step basis, you promptly lose the ability to # claim basic level conformance. # -- # Colin Paul Adams # Preston Lancashire
Received on Sunday, 29 February 2004 18:34:18 UTC