[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0

• To: evan@e...
• Subject: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 10:17:17 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <NDBBLMPNADEOOKGELJALMEBICJAA.evan@e...>
• References: <NDBBLMPNADEOOKGELJALMEBICJAA.evan@e...>

> As Mike Kay has mentioned, there has been talk in the working group about
> supporting a "schema-less" conformance level for XSLT 2.0

But my reading of those comments is that XSLT will be allowed to use
documents that don't use a schema. That is nowhere near enough.

I need to be able to determine what the input tree will be for a given
document. That means I must be able to turn off schema processing from
the stylesheet so that I can get the tree as it is, not the schema
adulterated version. I don't always have access to the document to
remove schemalocation attributes, and even if I did it wouldn't be
enough as a schema aware parser is allowed to apply a schema even if one
is not specified, if it thinks it knows something about teh namespaces
being used, or any other reason.

"support for schema" as per the requirements document should mean
support for functions over schema datatypes (this is a good thing).
It shouldn't mean the input is no longer XML but rather the shadowy
PSVI. Assuming that battle's lost and the input will be a PSVI there
has to be some way of being sure that when you use document() or the
implied input document, that you are acting on the document as
specified. In fact given that the schema processor goes to some lengths
_not_ to change any propoerties in the infoset of the document, but only
to augment the infoset with new properties, having XSLT receive the PSVI
as input would be fine so long as by default XPath operated over the
original infoset and only used the additional schema properties on
request.


David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • How to spell "No PSVI" in XSLT 2.0 ?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• References:
  • RE: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: "Evan Lenz" <evan@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Next by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Previous by thread: RE: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Next by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread