- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:52:18 GMT
- To: Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
- Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
For the time being we are leaving the comment open. David, if you have any comments on the direction we are taking, please let us know. Thanks for the detailed response. If I think of anything else I'll reply on this thread, of course it would be easier to think about interoperability between schema aware and basic xslt processors if there were any schema aware processors to try. It's very worrying that XSLT has got as far as last call with, as far as I know, no schema-aware implementations available. One thing that did occur to me was the interaction with forward compatible processing. If the mechanisms for having safe compile time guards becomes too complicated, it will be easier to just tell people to put version="1001" on their xsl:stylesheet, as the main effect of that is to make all these static errors dynamic. (It would also make xsl:schema-import be ignored, even under the current working draft) I don't think that faking a higher version number would be desirable, and would no doubt lead to bad interoperabilty problems in the future if you ever did produce an XSL version 1001, however I think the "forwards compatible behaviour" model has proved useful and could be used here as well, by essentially thinking of a schema-aware processor as version 2+epsilon (or, if you prefer, a basic xslt processor as 2-epsilon). This would perhaps suggest a more implicit, and more global, switching between dynamic and static errors than the explict guards suggested in your mail, but here I'm just reporting "gut reaction" and don't have any specific propsal at this time. 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 Monday, 26 January 2004 05:52:51 UTC