Re: XSLT Component

On 2/1/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think you said anything, you just quoted my reply. :-)
>
> / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
> | On 2/1/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> |>
> |> / Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
> |> | On 1/31/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
> |> |> A smart implementation can do the right thing a choose the right
> |> |> processor.  I did that in smallx in that XSLT 1.0 was handled by my
> |> version
> |> |> of  XT and XSLT 2.0 was handled by saxon.
> |> |
> |> | I agree.
> |> |
> |> | I just have some doubts about the warning mechanism. I am referring
> |> | to: "An implementations are allowed to use and XSLT 2.0 processor to
> |> | run an XSLT 1.0 transformation but a warning must be issued". I would
> |> | prefer, like Norm suggested, to have an optional parameter that the
> |> | pipeline author can set to say that he really wants to use an 1.0
> |> | engine or a 2.0 engine, whatever the version attribute in the
> |> | stylesheet says. In most cases pipeline authors won't need to worry
> |> | about this parameter and everything will work for them as expected.
> |>
> |> I think this introduces a new kind of parameter. While we've been
> |> saying that parameters passed to the xslt component are exposed to the
> |> processor, this would be a parameter that was consumed by the pipeline
> |> and not exposed. Do we really want to go there?



Just bizarre ... try 2

Why wouldn't this just be a regular parameter named 'version' that is used
to
indicate to the component what version of XSLT it must used.  If it doesn't
match
what it has, it "halts and catches fire".





-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics