W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > April 2006

[Bug 3070] How does "embedded simplified" work?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:00:06 +0000
CC:
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1FQX5i-00075T-Ms@wiggum.w3.org>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:11 UTC