- 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