Does that leave an open question then as to whether or not the
overall responsibility for XSLT 2 conformance relies with the
XSLT 2 processor even though the bug is attributable to the
XML parser?

A car manufactured with faulty sub-parts (e.g. brakes) is still
the responsibility of the car manufacturer isn't it? .. though,
of course, lawyers will still try and sue everybody!!!

On 22/02/2010 22:37, Justin Johansson wrote:

Accordingly it appears perfectly valid for an XSLT 2 processor to
both process as a source and serialize out the same by way of an
identity transform the following document

No, I don't think so, the part you quoted says

The XDM data model defined in [Data Model] is capable of representing either
an XML 1.0 document (conforming to [XML 1.0] and [Namespaces in XML 1.0])
or an XML 1.1 document (conforming to [XML 1.1] and [Namespaces in XML 1.1]),


the xdm data model can only model documents that conform to xml 1.0+namespaces 1.0 or xml 1.1+namespaces 1.1.

Of course the actual external document might be anything 9a comma separated text file, or <:/> or html or anything else but the tree reported by the parser used needs to be representable in XDM, wgich means that element node names have to match the Name production as defined in the relevant namespaces spec.

David