- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:00:06 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3070 ------- Comment #1 from mike@saxonica.com 2006-04-03 22:00 ------- I'm inclined to agree that this is not the most useful of facilities: very few people use embedded stylesheets, very few use simplified stylesheets, and the number who use both at once must be vanishingly small. However, I think it's well specified, and I think there was a consensus that XSLT 1.0 allowed it, so I'm not convinced there's a case for removing it. I can see potential use cases in a language that embeds XSLT, for example a future pipeline processing language might have an instruction <pp:transform> whose content is a stylesheet module, and I don't think there's any logical reason to say that this can't be any stylesheet module including a simplified one. In fact I think there's a good principle somewhere that any element that makes sense as the outermost element of a document also makes sense embedded at a deeper level: it's a good principle because it allows composability of languages. Any XML element is the root of a simplified stylesheet module if it satisfies two conditions: the XSLT namespace must be in scope, and it must have an xsl:version attribute. I don't understand the difficulty with the context node. The context node is a run-time concept and refers to a node in the source document, not in the stylesheet. Perhaps you were thinking of embedded stylesheets in terms of embedding within the source document (the document being transformed). I don't think that's the important use case: it's embedding within other languages, things like Ant, that matters. Michael Kay
Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 22:00:17 UTC