because it does not serve to construct the result of transformation, but
only to mark the result as valid or not; validation can be performed
at subsequent processing steps without any loss in expressive power.
I disagree.
I agree, you are right, Adam. I have been inaccurate.
There is a point behind validation of the output. With XSLT,
misbehaving stylesheets (or malformed input) can produce bizarre output
that is quite tricky to debug. It is an art, quite unlike the usual art
of debugging.
Validating the output as it is generated makes it easier for a
stylesheet engine to identify precisely where input/templates are
misbehaving. This feature makes it much closer to the 'error on line X'
form of debugging most of us are familiar with.
That said, I do not think this needs to be a *language* feature.
Especially when it mandates one schema language to the exclusion of all
others. This kind of feature should be left to implementors to figure
out, not language designers to mandate.
Yes, this is my opinion too. By saying that it can be leveraged to
other tools I did not mean that it is a sequential process; other
mechanisms of interaction are available besides piping one program's
output to the input of another.
But this feature should not belong to the environment, not to
the language.
David Tolpin
http://davidashen.net/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list