Re: XSLT 2 and xsl:result-document

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:

> 2008/11/27 Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>:
>> Toman_Vojtech@emc.com writes:
>>>
>>> Just a question: How does exsl:document relate to this?
>>
>> Good question. On the one hand, it's not clear how much we can say
>> about extensions, but in this case, I think that they should be
>> treated just like xsl:result-documents in XSLT 2.0.
>>
>> Which I think is fine except that we need to soften the statement
>> about the secondary result port in the XSLT 1.0 case.
>>
>> Right now it says:
>>
>>  If XSLT 1.0 is used, an empty sequence of documents MUST appear on
>>  the secondary port.
>>
>> I think we should reword that to:
>>
>>  If XSLT 1.0 is used, an empty sequence of documents will appear on
>>  the secondary port, unless extension elements or functions are used
>>  to write secondary results.
>
> Possibly dangerous precedence Norm?
> How to cater for all possible extensions?

Well. I see your point, but in this case the exsl:document extension
is both quasi-standard and widely deployed. And there's no compelling
reason for the MUST that exists in the current spec, it was just the
editor being overzealous, I think.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Wandering in a vast forest at night, I
http://nwalsh.com/            | have only a faint light to guide me. A
                              | stranger appears and says to me: "My
                              | friend, you should blow out your candle
                              | in order to find your way more
                              | clearly." This man is a theologian.--
                              | Diderot