Subject: Re: [xsl] run-time errors in XSLT From: David_Marston@xxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:39:25 -0500 |
Evan Lenz analyzed many of the discretionary provisions of the XSLT spec and then concluded: >I want to see an annotated XSLT spec!! I want to know what >James, et al. were thinking. My take is different: I want these Working Groups (WGs) to ensure that "what they were thinking" is embodied in the spec. It may be necessary for the W3C to give more guidance to the WGs about what the words must say explicitly. I've been trying to separate the explicit and testable content from the vague or incomplete in XSLT and XPath for two years now. Working on the OASIS XSLT/XPath Conformance Committee, I often have to reject "what they were thinking" as a basis for a conformance test. On the other hand, it would be interesting (but probably not normative) to know why each discretionary provision ("may signal the error or ignore" stuff) was put in there. .................David Marston XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] run-time errors in XSLT, Evan Lenz | Thread | [xsl] choose - when problem, Jo Kong HO |
Re: [xsl] string question, Robert Koberg | Date | Re: [xsl] xsl:if/xsl:when test, Maulik Modi |
Month |