- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:10:18 -0600
- To: public-xsl-wg@w3.org
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
> 6.4 source-document/@use-accumulators > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2016Aug/0005.html > Https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2016Aug/0007.html We decided to take the issue of stability first, and then come back to this. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2016Aug/0009.html If you say xsl:source-document streamable="no", do you get a new one 'each time' or is it the same 'each time'? We discussed at some length, and converged on the view that the functional or non-functional behavior of xsl:source-document should be implementation-defined. We considered adding a new-each-time attribute (with the values yes, no, maybe), and decided against it. ACTION 2016-09-01-001: MK to make sure the spec reflects the decision that the functional or non-functional behavior of xsl:source-document should be implementation-defined, and that there will be no new-each-time attribute on source-document. On the question of accumulators, we discussed but did not reach consensus. MK can go either way. ABr suggested that when documents are not streamed, all accumulators should always apply; the rationale for use-accumulators was only to avoid expensive unnecessary work when streaming a document and also using libraries which define accumulators. As a group, we were apparently leaning towards the proposal made by ABr, but MSM worried that this would create a difference between streaming semantics and non-streaming semantics, which would be troubling. At this point, the time allocated elapsed and we ended the call. ******************************************** C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com http://www.blackmesatech.com ********************************************
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2016 17:10:44 UTC