On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 06:44:10PM -0600, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > If so,
> > I'd have to agree with Elliotte that it would be confusingly different
> > than every other document() function on the planet!
>
> Not any other XSLT processor that supported XInclude, e.g. libxslt.
>
> Also, this smells like a red herring to me. The result of calling document() can also be different based on whether or not a validating parser is used, or based on the exact format of the HTTP request that is made, in the case of an HTTP URL. This is the ambiguity we deal with in the XML world, and all technologies suffer such ambiguities.
>
>
> > I would say that if
> > the XSLT specification does not describe a particular transformation be
> > applied to the input stream, then this expansion is potentially
> > confusing. I would personally not expect XInclude expansion to happen
> > without my specific action.
>
> Well, I personally would. And as I've mentioned, in most of my usage, I count on XInclude being applied at the layer right above the parse, pretty much universally.
>
> Others might prefer otherwise, and they can turn it off without fuss.
Just for the record, I have been following this thread from the distance,
I totally approve Uche's viewpoint. We both make it a switch in our processing
tools (honnestly, one more, one less, at that point I don't see how someone
can realistically blame us for this).
> I made XInclude the default because I was scratching my own itch. I haven't heard a *single* user complaint (and believe me, we get enough complaints about things on the 4Suite list) about XInclude processing being on by default in 4XSLT.
The only difference is that I made the default to not process XInclude.
Those who need it at the moment are early adopters and know about it, so
adding that flag on the command line or the extra call in their code
is not a problem for them. Once XInclude becomes a REC, then I will
probably switch it to be on by default, again it will still be a user
setting, or an option to just add such or such block at a given time
in the chain processing.
BTW, my recollection of last year W3C Workshop on XML processing model
there was one thing *cristal* clear:
"There is no single processing chain which fits everybody's need"
even the very basic stuff like "shall Schemas be applied before or after
an XInclude processing" had users in both camps. So those dreaming
about a single chain better select a flexible toolbox wire their needed
chain with it and forget about trying to convince the rest of the world
that their own way is the Right Way, there is no such thing (too bad !)
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
| libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
