Subject: Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames|
From: Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:48:17 +1030
Liam R E Quin wrote: > In addition, there's no way in an XPath expression to enquire about the > version of XML in the XML declaration of target documents, so it seems > to me the best choice is to allow the widest set, and rely on the XML > parser to complain if appropriate. It does have an effect on > tokenization, of course, but the XML 1.2 suggestions would have had > exactly the same effect if implemented as XML 1.1 and XML 1.0 5e in > this regard.
Liam R E Quin wrote: >> It doesn't change it a whole lot from XML 1.1. You were supporting >> XML 1.1, right? If no, what hope would there have been that you'd >> have supported an XML 1.2? Even less. If yes, quit complaining :-)
I'm more than happy to write code to support XML 1.1 and a future XML 1.2 if there is user demand for it. There is no complaint about writing the trivial code for the XPath engine once data is past the XML parser.
What the issue is about is the question of validating source data in (to the XML parser) and writing valid result data upon serialization. As many others have pointed out, in the absence of an explicit XML version identifier it's pretty difficult to unambiguously determine whether you are validating an XML 1.0 source document against pre- or post- 1.0 5th edition.
Also there's not point passing the buck onto the XML parser writer when you are one and the same person.
If there is a version of XML that would be a pleasure to support that would have to be XML 1.0.5. Is it really too late? Just because most of the noise about this was in 2007/2008, it doesn't mean that the problem has automatically gone away in 2010. And apparently it hasn't if this is anything to go by:
My apologies if this is moving too much off topic for this list, though one would reasonably expect that issues surrounding XSLT 2.0 implementation are just as relevant as are end-user XSLT questions and answers.***
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 21:25 -0500, ac wrote:
Complaining may not be so constructive but it may seem that expressing opinions and viewpoints with logic, experience, and clear sight may be. The objective should not be determining who is right but rather what is best for most in the long term.
The on-topic part here is that XSLT 2, XQuery and XPath 2 have support (optional) for XML 1.1, and to deal with that you have exactly the same issues as for XML 5th edition in terms of qnames.
In addition, there's no way in an XPath expression to enquire about the
version of XML in the XML declaration of target documents, so it seems
to me the best choice is to allow the widest set, and rely on the XML
parser to complain if appropriate. It does have an effect on
tokenization, of course, but the XML 1.2 suggestions would have had
exactly the same effect if implemented as XML 1.1 and XML 1.0 5e in
It's my full-time job to try & promote interoperability in XML (OK, it's _part_ of my job), and that includes trying to encourage developers to write code that will accept the full range of XML documents...