[xsl] Re: Attribute constructor for @xml:id

Subject: [xsl] Re: Attribute constructor for @xml:id
From: "Martin Holmes gtxxgm-xsl-list-2@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:09:29 -0000
Thanks indeed, that's exactly what I needed to know!


On 2017-02-07 11:31 AM, Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
This problem is envisaged in the XSLT spec. See B'11.1.2:

The xml:base, xml:lang, xml:space, and xml:id attributes have two effects in XSLT. They behave as standard XSLT attributes, which means for example that if they appear on a literal result element, they will be copied to the result tree in the same way as any other attribute. In addition, they have their standard meaning as defined in the core XML specifications. Thus, an xml:base attribute in the stylesheet affects the base URI of the element on which it appears, and an xml:space attribute affects the interpretation of whitespace text nodes within that element. One consequence of this is that it is inadvisable to write these attributes as attribute value templates: although an XSLT processor will understand this notation, the XML parser will not. See also 11.1.4 Namespace Aliasing which describes how to use xsl:namespace-alias with these attributes.

Michael Kay

On 7 Feb 2017, at 17:15, Martin Holmes gtxxgm-xsl-list-2@xxxxxxxxxxx <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi all,

I just hit a problem uploading what I thought was good XSLT 2.0 into exist-db. This is what the problem looks like:

<xsl:variable name="xmlSource">
  <div type="ajaxFragment" xml:id="{$thisId}" n="{$sortKey}">
    <head><xsl:value-of select="$citationCaption"/></head>

eXist's XML parser complains that the @xml:id is not a valid NCName, which of course it's not, but I hadn't until now considered the possibility that is-id constraints might apply to this kind of constructor in output content. Some on the eXist list have suggested that this is invalid XSLT, but Saxon has never complained about it and I can't actually find anything in the spec that clearly says so. There's an obvious workaround using the more verbose constructor, but I'd like to know whether this is in fact technically wrong or not. What say you?


Current Thread