Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: Output validation with XSLT 2.0 From: "Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 22:29:54 +0530 |
Thanks, Ken and Martin for useful explanations ... I agree to the points mentioned, and am now more clear about this topic. On 5/3/08, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 2008-05-03 21:49 +0530, Mukul Gandhi wrote: > > On 5/3/08, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Anyway, unused namespace declarations are innocuous in the result, so > this > > > is only an aesthetic issue. > > > > I agree. > > > > But the declaration, > xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" > > generated in the output XML is not being used anywhere (i.e., there is > > no reference to the xs: prefix in the generated XML). > > > > That is *your* problem, not the processor's problem. You added the > namespace node to the result on the document element of the result ... what > if 100 levels deep, 10 megabytes away from the start tag of the document > element, you needed that namespace node to be in scope? > > > Shouldn't the processor be more intelligent to avoid generating any > > namespace declarations which are used nowhere in the output? > > > > By what criteria could that decision possibly be made? > > > Probably this could be a minor enhancement request for Saxon :) > > > > I agree with Colin: enhancements shouldn't break conformance. > > At 2008-05-03 21:57 +0530, Mukul Gandhi wrote: > > I would like to learn how this could be non-compliant ... > > > > Because the specification requires all attached namespace nodes to be copied > to the result tree. Since you didn't prune the namespace node for XSD, it > is still attached to the literal result element, so it must be copied. > > And the specification cannot imply its removal or be changed to wait for > your test of use: the result tree can be instantaneously serialized, which > would include any attached namespace nodes. As soon as an element's content > is begun, that element's start tag is allowed to be serialized to the output > without keeping it around. Remember the result tree cannot be inspected. > This allows an application not to keep the result tree in memory before > serialization. Your "enhancement" would break so many aspects of > implementation. > > I hope this helps. > > . . . . . . . . . . . Ken > > > On 5/3/08, Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>>> "Mukul" == Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > Mukul> Probably this could be a minor enhancement request for > > > Mukul> Saxon :) > > > > > > I can't see Michael accepting it, as it would be non-compliant. > > > > > -- > World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training > RSS feeds: publicly-available developer resources and training > G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Crane Softwrights Ltd. > http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/ > Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995) > Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07 > http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/bc > Legal business disclaimers: > http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal > > -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: Output validation wit, G. Ken Holman | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: Output validation wit, Martin Honnen |
Re: [xsl] Re: Output validation wit, Martin Honnen | Date | Re: [xsl] function-available return, Michael Müller-Hille |
Month |