Subject: RE: [xsl] document() function and error-handling From: "Scott Trenda" <Scott.Trenda@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:34:07 -0600 |
I'm really not trying to beat a nearly-dead horse here (I swear!), but the XML spec says in '2.6: [17] PITarget ::= Name - (('X' | 'x') ('M' | 'm') ('L' | 'l')) If I'm reading it correctly, this only reserves "xml", and variations in letter cases, for internal use. Whether or not it's bad form to create PIs of the form <?xml-whatever?> is a separate issue, but the spec doesn't forbid it. Like I said before, bad form is bad form and I'll alter it in the end, I just haven't thought of a better name for it yet. :( And again, thanks for the responses, they've been really helpful. ~ Scott -----Original Message----- From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:13 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [xsl] document() function and error-handling > Wouldn't > "xml-" be the most appropriate prefix here? No, such names are reserved for other use. You can call it result-xml or _xml_result or pretty much anything you like. Why trample on the reserved names? even w3c specs avoid doing this, consider xslt for example an early draft had an attribute xml-declaration on xsl:output, but they thought better of it and changed to omit-xml-declaration http://www.w3.org/1999/08/WD-xslt-19990813#section-XML-Output-Method David
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] document() function and e, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] document() function and e, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] document() function and e, David Carlisle | Date | RE: [xsl] document() function and e, Michael Kay |
Month |