Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0 (was "Identifying two tags...") From: "Evan Lenz" <evan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 01:12:49 -0700 |
David Carlisle wrote: > So what is needed is not conformance levels by which to grade > implementations but "processing modes" by which to control > schema use (or more often useful, non-use). Yes, that makes sense, and such a processing mode could go hand-in-hand with a conformance level. This would allow PSVI-ignorant processors to output an error when it comes across the "psvi-aware" attribute (or whatever) in the stylesheet, rather than simply outputting different results. I agree that this is important and should be heard by the working group. (Of course, when you marry a processing mode with a conformance level, you've essentially got a different version of the language, interesting thought...) However, I think that in practice, a conformance level can still help the potential for multiple interoperable implementations at *any* level. Having multiple implementations that behave the same (which seems far more likely among PSVI-ignorant processors) will certainly impact users in the end. I could have just requested that users send comments requesting that XSLT 2.0 be implementable so that they'll be able to use it, but I figured that was a little on the vague side. Evan Lenz certainly speaking only for himself XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0 (was "Iden, Dan Holmsand | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0 (was "Iden, bryan |
Re: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0 (was "Iden, Dan Holmsand | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT performance under Li, Kurt Cagle |
Month |