- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:03:14 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3821 ------- Comment #4 from mike@saxonica.com 2006-10-24 11:03 ------- Personal response to your reply: >>1. Using the system-property() with it will work if all XSLT 2.0 processors and future XSLT 3.0 processors ... However, if a certain declaration is not supported in an implementation. Unfortunately, if processor chooses not to conform to the specification, there is very little we can choose to do about it. In particular, we can't include clauses like "if you don't support this element which all conformant processors are required to support, then you must do XYZ." A vendor who ignores one conformance rule in the spec is likely to ignore others as well. 2>> detecting extension declarations ("user-defined data elements") is still impossible It's not necessary to detect them, as it is for extension instructions, because by default a processor will ignore them anyway. It's not clear in any case what something like element-available('saxon:collation') would mean. You can always have a top-level element called saxon:collation - the element is always available. The only question is whether the processor attaches any special meaning to it: and you can determine that by testing system-property('xsl:vendor'). 3>> By the way, ... MSXML 3.0 (with IE6 and IE7), Transformiix (with Firefox 1.5.0.7 and Opera 9 and Xalan-C (tested in Dreamwaver 8) already return true() to all supported elements. MSXML 4.0+ and libxslt 1.1.15 don't We're aware that conformance to some aspects of XSLT 1.0 has been patchy, and we have sometimes taken such evidence into account when deciding how critical it is to be backwards compatible. I would accept that this is a case where if we decided that a change was clearly desirable, we would not let backwards compatibility get in the way.
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2006 11:03:24 UTC