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

[Bug 3526] May [xsl:validation] take an AVT?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:24:53 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1G4lRV-000315-6S@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #1 from mike@saxonica.com  2006-07-23 21:24 -------
For instructions like xsl:element, the syntax proforma is normative: this has

  name = { qname }
  namespace? = { uri-reference }
  inherit-namespaces? = "yes" | "no"
  use-attribute-sets? = qnames
  type? = qname
  validation? = "strict" | "lax" | "preserve" | "strip">
  <!-- Content: sequence-constructor -->

Attributes that may be AVTs are shown in curly braces; therefore "validation"
is not an AVT.

For literal result elements, we have to rely on the fact that 11.1.1 says that
the allowed values of the attribute are defined in 19.2, and in 19.2 the
possible values are enumerated in the text as strict|lax|preserve|strip. 

The use of the term "effective value" is perhaps injudicious. It's not
hyperlinked to the definition of the term "effective value" as used in relation
to AVTs, and is in fact intended as a reference to the statement "If both
attributes are omitted, the effect is the same as specifying the validation
attribute with the value specified in the default-validation attribute of the
containing xsl:stylesheet element; if this is not specified, the effect is the
same as specifying validation='strip'."

I think we could probably add clarity by stating explicitly in section 11.1.1
that the value of xsl:validation must be one of these four values and that AVTs
are not allowed.
Received on Sunday, 23 July 2006 21:24:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:13 UTC