My question is, do people consider this a valid interpretation of the
draft recommendation,
If it's in XSLT then no, and not really within the bounds of what can be
done via the extension mechanism either, ie something implementing that
would be a non-xslt/xpath system. (Not that there is necessarily
anything wrong with having a user option to become a system with
extended features, so long as people know that's what they have)
However I suppose if it's just an Xpath application then you get to
decide the host language embedding and at a stretch you could declare
that the initial context includes a binding of every possible
QName to the value false.
However this seems to be against the spirit of the thing, are you sure
you want this?
or should I make it an optional feature?
Definitely don't make it the default behaviour,
David
--
http://www.dcarlisle.demon.co.uk/matthew
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list