Subject: Re: [xsl] keys and idrefs - XSLT2 request? From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:33:56 +0100 |
> It seems to me that your argument is that the choice is between doing > 'none' (but using casting, stylesheet associations or whatever to get > the built-in simple types) or doing 'everything' (where everything is > a suitable set of properties from the PSVI). 'Everything' is too much > therefore we should do none. Since mathematicians really like to argue, you should make a distinction between what I'm arguing (which is more or less the above) and what I believe to be true (which may be something entirely different). Mainly I'm just stirring the discussion because I think it ought to be stirred. It seems to me that the status quo is that XSLT development is delayed while schema support is added, and that schema support must be added as it is a MUST requirement in the XSLT 2.0 requirements doc. But my question is _who_ required it and why? It seems at best a "nice to have" feature if it could be added easily, and at worst an intrusive aspect that will cause real compatibility problems between XSLT systems using schema-validating and non-validating parsers. Is it a requirement that comes from W3C internal politics, or is it a requirement that comes from real users? David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] keys and idrefs - XSLT2 r, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] keys and idrefs - XSLT2 r, Jeni Tennison |
RE: [xsl] Re:Re: How to pass the va, Jorge Maestre | Date | [xsl] Re:RE: How to pass the variab, Yang |
Month |