Subject: Re[2]: [xsl] xsl 1.1 security model? From: Steven.C.Kienle@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:46:43 -0500 |
In response to: > I think the most material differences between "the publishing cycle" > and "client-side rendering" are likely to be scaleability and > security. I can imagine rendering requirements such as creating > framed content that would really benefit from something like > xsl:document if it could be done securely. But this would probably > be scope-creep for a minor increment spec release... I think the best approach to this would be to change HTML to support frame-sets which include HTML code rather than just references to other HTML documents. Of course, this is simply to keep the entire page generated in a single XSLT tansform. An approach which works today is to have a frame set, and then each of the HTML "pages" referenced in that frame set would be XSLT transforms for each of the frames. No need for xsl:document at all. Steve ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: [xsl] xsl 1.1 security model? Author: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> at Internet-America Date: 26-03-2001 1:19 PM Michael Kay wrote: > > > > > And would an implementation that disabled the xsl:document element > > client-side still be XSLT 1.1 compliant? > > > It's my understanding that Microsoft are reluctant to implement this feature > client-side, and I think the spec is clear that it's not required for > conformance. > Indeed, I should have spotted that http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt11/#conformance states: "A conforming XSLT processor need not be able to output the result in XML or in any other form." which implies that this feature need not implemented at all. > This approach makes sense, since the requirement for the feature is mainly > fur use during the publishing cycle, not in client-side rendering. > I think the most material differences between "the publishing cycle" and "client-side rendering" are likely to be scaleability and security. I can imagine rendering requirements such as creating framed content that would really benefit from something like xsl:document if it could be done securely. But this would probably be scope-creep for a minor increment spec release... Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xsl 1.1 security model?, Francis Norton | Thread | RE: Re[2]: [xsl] xsl 1.1 security m, Chris Bayes |
[xsl] XML updates on Startkabel, xml | Date | RE: Re[2]: [xsl] xsl 1.1 security m, Chris Bayes |
Month |