Subject: [xsl] Re: document not there ambiguity|
From: S Woodside <sbwoodside@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:00:21 -0400
Since when have massive cross-posts become good netiquette?
S Woodside wrote:On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 10:23 AM, Chris Leishman wrote:I wonder why people that complain about problems they find in specs don't ask themselves "why is this here?" before bitching out loud. Some specs, like all software, have misfeatures. In other cases there is a real need and reason for the given feature, whether it is liked or not.They're already on the way... the WD for xslt 2.0 says this about "unparsed-text" functionThe spec states in section 12.1 Multiple Source DocumentsReally...what where the W3C thinking? Perhaps someone should start a list of 'standard implementation choices for implementing the xslt standard' (rolls eyes) and maybe that'll become YAWNS (Yet Another W3C uNsuccessful Standard).
"If there is an error retrieving the resource, then the XSLT processor
may signal an error; if it does not signal an error, it must recover
by returning an empty node-set."
So both behaviours are correct.
There are cases in which non-failing document() is desired (eg optional inclusion of data, often using the "relative to nodeset" approach)
and others where failing is better.
The spec addresses both.
Which behaviour to choose is an application problem. That processors do not give the option may be construed as a bug. That they don't default to failing may be construed as a bug. It nevertheless remain an application problem.
-- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@xxxxxxxxx> Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
-- www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel