RE: XSLT 2.0 WD feedback: Issue (evaluate-function)

>From: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
>To: "'Matt G.'" <matt_g_@hotmail.com>, xsl-editors@w3.org
>Subject: RE: XSLT 2.0 WD feedback: Issue (evaluate-function)
>Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:53:10 +0100
>
>Thanks (on behalf of the WG) for this feedback, which we will
>consider carefully: though I can't promise when, or with what result.

I really appreciate the opportunity to voice my feedback.


Anyhow, if XPath evaluation isn't a mandatory feature, in XSLT 2.0, it'd at 
least be nice if it were a fully-specified optional feature (i.e. in order 
to facilitate stylesheet portability, the feature should look and behave the 
same way on all processors that support it).  Of course, a processor that 
implements it differently shouldn't be deemed non-XSLT 2.0 compliant, but my 
hope is to see arbitrary differences minimized (though implementations 
offering a superset of the recommended feature are probably fine :).


>I'd be interested to know what you think of the proposed facilities
>in Appendix F as a way of getting entities and entity references
>into the serialized result document. They have been put forward
>somewhat tentatively, so it would be useful to have feedback as to
>whether or not they meet the requirement.

It looks nice, but the suggested usage model leaves a bit to be desired, 
IMO.  It seems to me that, given the model suggested by the spec, it could 
put great burden on the stylesheet writer to be able to take advantage of 
this information, without depending on it.  I think, as a user, I'd rather 
see a "lexical" XPath axis (pair?), to let me hop back & forth between the 
tree w/ the lexical constructs and without.  I think this would be much 
easier to use, and its use could be better encapsulated within a small 
number of templates.

I envision that the "lexical" XPath axis could be an optional feature of 
XPath 2.0, just as support of the lexical constructs are proposed as an 
optional feature of XSLT processors.


>Mike Kay

Thanks for the reply.


Matthew Gruenke


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 07:45:21 UTC