Subject: RE: [xsl] xsl/xslt coding standard From: "James Fuller" <james.fuller@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:28:28 +0100 |
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jeni Tennison > > If you take the idea of using document-element-prefixes to mark > certain namespaces as being for documentation, people who wanted to > could bring across that pattern of documentation if they wanted. I see the need to have a common set of conventions for meta data within a stylesheet...not just that of satisfying doc requirements, inevitably people will want to include; - versioning and authoring meta data - generic doc - code doc - change log - compatibility issues - licensing - usage details - and whatever else, that is actually meta data which also happens to be 'documentation' I think that developers should have a choice of which markup to use within their documentation....Docbook, XHTML, HTML, voiceml, dublin core, whatever etc..... So, I think that we need a recognized doc idiom.....but possibly expand the idea that doc is a subset of a general requirement of metadata within an xsl stylesheet ( or any markup for that matter ! ) . I was surprised to see the lack of a specific documentation namespace ...e.g. that xs:documentation is using xs defined as xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema".....would it not make sense to have a standard unique namespace that can be used across every markup, not just xsl.... Scenario 1: add an xsl specific element <xsl:doc/> which of course binds it to the xsl namespace....but why ? This seems silly when we have a doc requirement in every markup. Scenario 2: <xs:documentation/> which binds it to XML schema.....but why ? same problem as S1 in addition, that some people will not a binding to XML schema because it is not a native markup for writing documentation. Scenario 3: add a new namespace to XMLSchema which then segregates the doc from schema...yet keeps it under Schema <meta:doc xmlns:meta="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema/Documentation"/>this may keep everyone happy. Scenario 4: <meta:doc xmlns:meta="http://www.w3.org/2002/someDocumentation"/>this takes it 'out' of schema and xsl namespaces... so I suggest Scenario 4... and using the XHTML module for Metainformation http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_metamodule which means we have a unique namespace http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-meta-1.mod that is a subset of xhtml, itself a language to be used for documentation. as we can extend it as time goes on; not to mention use it whithin any context, in addition to using any markup you would like within those meta elements. I think Jeni's suggestion of adding to xsl:stylesheet doesnt make any sense...for example if your document is HTML format; what happens if you also use HTML namespace in a literal result element...as part of your result tree ? Also meta data, such as doc, should be able to live on its on, after any kind of extraction or transform process (....something like Xinclude or even non-xml processing )...which means that putting this data in the enclosing stylesheet element as an attribute is not a precise enough resolution....though admittedly it would be a pain to have to explicitly add namespace declaration to each <meta:doc/> tag. cheers ,jim fuller ps: the words xs:annotation and xs:documentation are wayyyy to long also ! XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xsl/xslt coding standard, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] xsl/xslt coding standard, Jeni Tennison |
Re: [xsl] Merge - a.xml + b.xml = c, Carsten Klein | Date | Re: RE: RE: [xsl] DOM and XML parse, ashu t |
Month |