Inadvertently, I am sure, you omitted what
Kurt went on to say. I quote it
here for your convenience:
>I still contend that type doesn't belong
in XSLT, but if it is in there, it
>should make processes more efficient,
not less. If type needs to be there,
>then all of XSD should be supported,
such that an XSLT function can return
>an object of complex type Foo.
Would you be happy if the XSLT WG went on
to heed Kurt's second option and
implemented all of XSD Schema?
I don't know if he'd be happy, I'm sure I
wouldn't be happy since I don't want xsdl
forced on me, but on the other hand this
would be partially doing what I've argued in
some other thread long since for the
possibility of returning fragments from the
schema validation. Since to me an "xml type"
would be mostly sensible as a portion of a
tree. Of course my arguments was that
validation mechanisms should be more
abstract, to allow RNG as well, and to just
have rules about how a particular processor
implemented its particular validation
mechanism. The idea being of course that I
expected a lot of the smaller processors
would not support xsd at all, and opt
instead for schematron or RNG. But no-one
does anything to make me happy anymore
**sniffle**
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list