[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames


Subject: Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames
From: Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:48:17 +1030

Liam R E Quin wrote:
> In addition, there's no way in an XPath expression to enquire about the
> version of XML in the XML declaration of target documents, so it seems
> to me the best choice is to allow the widest set, and rely on the XML
> parser to complain if appropriate.  It does have an effect on
> tokenization, of course, but the XML 1.2 suggestions would have had
> exactly the same effect if implemented as XML 1.1 and XML 1.0 5e in
> this regard.

Liam R E Quin wrote:
>> It doesn't change it a whole lot from XML 1.1.  You were supporting
>> XML 1.1, right?  If no, what hope would there have been that you'd
>> have supported an XML 1.2? Even less. If yes, quit complaining  :-)

With respect, Liam, I find your comments a tad dismissive of the problem.

I'm more than happy to write code to support XML 1.1 and a future XML 1.2
if there is user demand for it.  There is no complaint about writing the
trivial code for the XPath engine once data is past the XML parser.

What the issue is about is the question of validating source data
in (to the XML parser) and writing valid result data upon serialization.
As many others have pointed out, in the absence of an explicit XML version
identifier it's pretty difficult to unambiguously determine whether you
are validating an XML 1.0 source document against pre- or post- 1.0 5th
edition.

Also there's not point passing the buck onto the XML parser writer when
you are one and the same person.

If there is a version of XML that would be a pleasure to support that
would have to be XML 1.0.5.  Is it really too late? Just because most
of the noise about this was in 2007/2008, it doesn't mean that the problem
has automatically gone away in 2010.  And apparently it hasn't if this
is anything to go by:

XML Prague 2009, Day 2 | De Gustibus
XML 1.0 Fifth Edition http://www.adjb.net/post/SC-34-Meetings-Prague-Day-1.aspx


My apologies if this is moving too much off topic for this list, though
one would reasonably expect that issues surrounding XSLT 2.0 implementation
are just as relevant as are end-user XSLT questions and answers.***

*** (btw. If to the contrary would someone please point me to an active
forum where it okay to discuss XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 implementation issues.)


Regards

Justin Johansson




Liam R E Quin wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 21:25 -0500, ac wrote:
Hi,

Complaining may not be so constructive but it may seem that expressing opinions and viewpoints with logic, experience, and clear sight may be. The objective should not be determining who is right but rather what is best for most in the long term.

The on-topic part here is that XSLT 2, XQuery and XPath 2 have support (optional) for XML 1.1, and to deal with that you have exactly the same issues as for XML 5th edition in terms of qnames.

In addition, there's no way in an XPath expression to enquire about the
version of XML in the XML declaration of target documents, so it seems
to me the best choice is to allow the widest set, and rely on the XML
parser to complain if appropriate. It does have an effect on
tokenization, of course, but the XML 1.2 suggestions would have had
exactly the same effect if implemented as XML 1.1 and XML 1.0 5e in
this regard.


It's my full-time job to try & promote interoperability in XML (OK, it's
_part_ of my job), and that includes trying to encourage developers to
write code that will accept the full range of XML documents...

Best,

Liam


Current Thread
Keywords