This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: XSLT V 1.1
----- Original Message -----
From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
>
> > I guess you *can* put together some tricky mess
> > of &entities,
>
> entities are a widely used and standard part of XML, and I can't see how
> it helps to just ridicule people who use these features. XSL currently
> supports them and there is (I would hope) no chance that a future XSL
> removes that support. Having multiple URI per document is likely to
> become more not less likely as support for xml base comes along.
1. I'm not saying that XSL should stop supporting entities
( and I never said that ).
I'm saying that by default document() should resolve URI's
relatively to current XML input *not* to the current XSL
stylesheet like it is now.
What is your argument against this statement ?
2. *Another* point I'm making is that maybe having
base URI being changed 'down the road' *is* possible,
but I don't understand *how* this is usable in the
real life, that's why I was asking for particular usecase.
Instead of providing the usecase you are now
writing : "stop blaming entities".
This is not about 'blaming entities'.
Well, I do blame them, but this is *not* the point
I'm making , that 'entities' is bad. I know they are bad.
Because they are bad I'm not using them ( like XSLT
itslef is not using &include, but stays with xsl:include ;-)
Because I'm not using &entities - I'm not experienced
in that &entity hacking - I simply can not see how
to produce a reasonable usecase which will shift
base URI's on-the-fly on purpose !!!! I can hink only
about something artificial !
I'm suspicious about 'multiple URI per document' being
reasonable architecture. You are saying: "entities
are common practice and simple document() will
not work with some common usecases". I think it
is consistent to ask: could you please *show* that
entities-sensitive usecase? I'm sorry if I'm
asking for that usecase using bad wording.
I apologize for all the bad things I said about
XML &entities;.
The question remains the same : how *in particular*
usage of &entities makes problems to 'simple'
document() ?
But again - this is *also* not important now.
My last letter says:
This thread takes long. *No matter* do you really
have any usecase - let's inherint *current*
"only current URI matters", but stop resiolving
document() from URI of the stylesheet - there
is no too much point in current 'default' behavior.
1. Put away hard-coded for-each
2. Resolve relatively to XML input, but not to XSL stylesheet.
3. Use "" ( or argv0 ) to resolve relatively to XSL stylesheet.
This will give *not* the document() we have now,
but all the useful functionality of document() will
be supported.
Maybe I'm wrong with (1), but I think I can not be wrong
with 2 and 3 ( because I'm using current XSLT solution,
just making it more consistent. )
Rgds.Paul.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list