Subject: RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation) From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:08:25 -0000 |
> But they have to pay the price of vastly increased complexity > in the specification (and one assumes in the text books that > will follow). If they were paying, either for the specs or for the products, then they might have more ability to influence the outcome... > > As the conformance levels are not specified it's hard to > comment on them but it would seem likely given the current > XSLT draft that given a document and a stylesheet which does > not refer to a schema explictly a schema-aware XSLT engine > will produce different results (because it sees vastly > different input) than a non-schema aware processor... Yes, this is likely. We're exploring this area at the moment: for example there are suggestions that a stylesheet should be able to say whether it requires to use a schema-aware (or non-schema-aware) processor, to ensure interoperable results. Note that we already have this in a very basic form with ID attributes in XSLT 1.0; these will be recognized by the id() function or not, depending on the XML parser you use. Michael Kay Software AG home: Michael.H.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx work: Michael.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, David Carlisle | Thread | [xsl] [design question], TP |
[xsl] get the first of the followi, Cedric Claus | Date | [xsl] [design question], TP |
Month |