Re: [xsl] Re: Output validation with XSLT 2.0

["Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@xxxxxxxxx>]

The following example could also be worth discussing ...

Please consider this 2.0 stylesheet:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";
                        xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
                        xmlns:a="http://localhost/myfunctions";
                        version="2.0">

  <xsl:output method="xml" indent="yes" />

  <xsl:template match="/">
    <result>
      <xsl:value-of select="a:f()" />
    </result>
  </xsl:template>

  <xsl:function name="a:f" as="xs:integer">
    <xsl:sequence select="10" />
  </xsl:function>

</xsl:stylesheet>

The output produced is:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<result xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; xmlns:a="http://localhost/my
functions">10</result>

Logically, I think (from end user's point of view) having the function
namespace by default coming into the output is not that good.

I would like to learn, what did the language designers had in mind
(i.e., the logic behind it), while deciding what namespace should be
copied to the output and which not ?

On 5/6/08, David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, I'm not proposing any changes, it's no big deal - just
> > pointing out (or perhaps looking for confirmation) that the xml schema
> > namespace could easily have been excluded by default.
>
> If "to" had allowed double as well as integer then most stylesheets
> could easily avoid declaring the xs namespace, which would make the
> whole problem go away. If you are really using an XSD-specific datatype
> such as date handling, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to have to
> declare (and exclude) the xs namespace, but I do curse every time I have
> to add an xs namespace just so I can go
> select="1 to xs:integer(something)"
>
> David


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi