Re: An interesting angle on types in XSLT 2.0?
Andrew Watt wrote: > If a new class of errors introduced by XML is "good", why is a new class of > errors introduced by types in XSLT 2.0 "bad"? I think the succinct answer is that 'errors introduced by XML' (which as a practical matter means well-formedness errors which halt a parser) go to the heart of what document content *is* as expressed in XML syntax, while validation errors fall in the distinctly more peripheral area of how document content is used by a particular application (or, if you prefer, you can substitute 'interpreted' or 'expected' for 'used'). That distinction is fundamental: the separation of well-formedness from validity is philosophically the salient point on which XML departs from its SGML ancestry. Therefore proliferation in the forms of validation which might be applied to XML (though each naturally introduces new errors of its own) is on the whole a good thing. Forcing any such class of errors so intimately into the core of XML that the fundamental distinction of well-formedness from validation is lost or obscured is transgression upon XML itself. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format