Re: How is this part of the XSLT specification to be interpr

At 20:10 21/06/00 +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 06:33:49PM +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>> as the design pattern for including documentation instead.  In a previous
>> email, I've pointed out that this probably isn't a good idea just in case
>> some XSLT processor comes along that *does* understand the 'doc:template'
>> extension element, because then the content of the xsl:fallback element
>> (which is the content of the template) will not be processed, and your
>> legacy stylesheet won't work. 
>
>That seems extremely unlikely, because that processor would have to act
>not on the literal string 'doc:template' but on the http://doc.com
>namespace, which in reality would be something more like
>http://smop.org/xslt/documentation. I promise not to have any XSLT
>processor interpret that, and the rest of the world has no claim on my
>domain :-)

Sure, you have control over your own namespaces, and in that case then putting your template content into an xsl:fallback element is future proof.

I was thinking about situations where you might use a public documentation standard (e.g. HTML) for your XSLT documentation.  In those cases, it's a lot more likely that an XSLT processor might take to interpreting their contents, particularly if that dialect started to be used as the standard for XSLT documentation.

Cheers,

Jeni

Dr Jeni Tennison
Epistemics Ltd * Strelley Hall * Nottingham * NG8 6PE
tel: 0115 906 1301 * fax: 0115 906 1304 * email: jeni.tennison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list