- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:27:15 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6024
Summary: [XSLT 2++] Enhancement: modes and schema-awareness
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Version: Recommendation
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: XSLT 2.1
AssignedTo: mike@saxonica.com
ReportedBy: mike@saxonica.com
QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org
The ability to take advantage of schema-awareness in XSLT 2.0 is currently
limited by the fact that most of the code consists of template rules, and in a
typical template rule written with match="elementname" there is no type
information available statically about the type of the context node. Rewriting
all the template rules to use match="schema-element(elementname)" is laborious,
and only works for elements declared globally; it also makes it very difficult
to maintain parallel schema-aware and non-schema-aware versions of the
stylesheet.
We can reduce this problem by making schema-awareness a property of a mode.
<xsl:mode name?="mode-name" typed="no|yes|strict|lax|unspecified">
"no" means that the document will be untyped; template rules in this mode will
only match nodes if they are untyped. (The system can therefore assume, for
example, that atomizing an attribute node will yield a single untypedAtomic
value).
"yes" means that the document will be schema-validated
"strict" means that the document will be schema-validated, and any element name
used at the start of every match pattern in this mode must be the name of a
global element declaration, and is interpreted as schema-element(E).
"lax" means that the document will be schema-validated, and when an element
name used at the start of a match pattern corresponds to the name of a global
element declaration, then it is interpreted as schema-element(E).
"unspecified" default and means don't know / don't care.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 09:27:51 UTC