RE: XSL file / "standalone" stylesheets - why not?

Subject: RE: XSL file / "standalone" stylesheets - why not?
From: "Chris Bayes" <Chris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:17:53 -0000
You mean like give me next years calendar.
I don't need a document.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike Brown
>Sent: 13 January 2000 20:09
>To: 'xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>Cc: 'xsl-editors@xxxxxx'
>Subject: RE: XSL file / "standalone" stylesheets - why not?
>On the XSL list, someone said:
>> There is no such thing as a "standalone" XSL page...
>Not really wrong, but not 100% true either, especially with the advent of
>the document() function.
>An XSLT engine only needs one source node to process: a root node.
>This root
>node is not something that is specified in an XML document (it's not the
>same as the root/document element). If there is only a root node, there is
>no reason to assume that there was an XML document or other data
>source from
>which the source tree was constructed, and in my opinion, it follows that
>there is no reason for an XSLT processor such as XT to require
>such a source
>document as one of its command-line arguments -- a source tree
>consisting of
>only a root node can be the default, if no other data source is provided. I
>mentioned this either on the XSL list or to James Clark directly (I don't
>remember which) but my comment was not acknowledged.
>I realize that the spec only deals with tree transformations and this is a
>peripheral implementation issue, but the spec does make recommendations for
>how a processor should handle output... so why not also make a
>recommendation like this for how it should handle input?
>Or am I missing something?
> XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread