W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > September 2016

[Bug 29832] [FO31] fn:transform options

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 19:19:32 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-29832-523-8tAhT9Wlvf@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
I like the suggestion that many of these are inverses of the system-property()
interrogative, and suggest we add a new option:

required-properties - a map describing the required properties of the XSLT
processor to be used. If an entry with key K and value V is present in this
map, this indicates a requirement that the processor should be one for which
system-property(K) returns the value V, or a value considered by the
implementation to be equivalent in the sense that applications are unlikely to
be affected by the difference (for example a request for
xsl:product-version="9" might return a processor with
xsl:product-version=""). However, any setting of xsl:version in this map
is ignored since it would duplicate the effect of the xslt-version option. A
value of "no" for a feature such as "is-schema-aware" or
"supports-dynamic-evaluation" explicitly requests a processor that does not
support this feature; if the application doesn't care whether the feature is
supported or not, then no value should be supplied for this property in the
required-properties map.

This covers most of your suggestions. For the remainder, I suggest top-level

enable-assertions  boolean  default false, switches assertion checking on or
enable-trace       boolean  switches fn:trace on or off; default is impl-def
enable-messages    boolean  switches xsl:message on or off; default is impl-def

I think that validation is a bit of a minefield and we should leave it out
(because of the problems of saying which documents we're talking about
validating, and the interaction with other facilities such as
xsl:source-document/@validation, and input-type-annotations).

I don't see a need to set environment variables - static parameters are much
more useful.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 19:19:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:58:02 UTC