Re: keys and idrefs - XSLT2 request?

> It seems to me that your argument is that the choice is between doing
> 'none' (but using casting, stylesheet associations or whatever to get
> the built-in simple types) or doing 'everything' (where everything is
> a suitable set of properties from the PSVI). 'Everything' is too much
> therefore we should do none.


Since mathematicians really like to argue, you should make a distinction
between what I'm arguing (which is more or less the above) and what I
believe to be true (which may be something entirely different).

Mainly I'm just stirring the discussion because I think it ought to be
stirred. It seems to me that the status quo is that XSLT development is
delayed while schema support is added, and that schema support must be
added as it is a MUST requirement in the XSLT 2.0 requirements doc.

But my question is _who_ required it and why? It seems at best a "nice
to have" feature if it could be added easily, and at worst an intrusive
aspect that will cause real compatibility problems between XSLT systems
using schema-validating and non-validating parsers.

Is it a requirement that comes from W3C internal politics, or is it a
requirement that comes from real users?

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.

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