This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: XSLT V 1.1
- To: "'xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com'" <xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: RE: XSLT V 1.1
- From: Eckenberger Axel <Extern dot Eckenberger at kmweg dot de>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:38:37 +0200
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
David,
please consider this scenario:
You have a stylesheet that is saved to disk somewhere and have a document
you want to include, this document can be described by a relative path to
the stylesheet. The stylesheet is now used to transform xml fragments that
are generated in memory, e.g. from a database query.
With your new default beaviour this would no longer be possible, as the path
now has to be relative to the source tree, which does not have a pyhsical
representation in the file system.
I think that this is a quite common use for stylesheets and the spec should
cater for this !
The second argument allows for futher uses (like the example) that extend
the default behaviour, and therefore I believe that the current form of the
document function has its validity.
Axel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Tchistopolskii [mailto:paul@qub.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:10 PM
> To: xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
> Subject: Re: XSLT V 1.1
----------------------------- snip
----------------------------------------------
> I don't understand what is a problem. I'm dumb and I don't understand
> things until I see the example.
>
> I have been provided with the example. I answered : "for this
> example,
> changing the deafult behavior of XSLT engine to something
> natural and easy to understand - should work".
>
> Now you are saying that "there is another example, which breaks
> your solution".
>
> What is your example?
>
----------------------------- snip
----------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list