Subject: RE: [xsl] document() function and error-handling From: "Scott Trenda" <Scott.Trenda@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:50:20 -0600 |
Wendell, Thanks for your reply. Well explained, and good practical points on top of it. The result document in this case would only be used internally by our system, so <?oati-xml-result?> would work just fine in this case. My reasoning behind <?xml-result?> is this: I'm writing the behind-the-scenes valid-URL testing to be as generic as possible in the proxy script, perhaps even resorting to a try-catch XSLT run with a stylesheet that simply attempts to access the URL via document() to see if it fails or not. I might port it to other systems if it proves generic enough, and <?oati-xml-result?> would include the name of a company that has nothing to do with the process. (Replace "oati" with "microsoft" here and it might become more poignant. ~_^) Granted, <?xml-result?> isn't a W3C-endorsed PI at all, but it does contain information regarding the XML-validity of an attempted reference to an external document, and nothing more specific than that. Wouldn't "xml-" be the most appropriate prefix here? (For the record, I'm really bad at naming things when it comes to computer stuff. :/ ) ~ Scott P.S. Where exactly would you draw the line when it comes to XSLT issues vs. XML issues? XSLT is, after all, XML. :) -----Original Message----- From: Wendell Piez [mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:19 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [xsl] document() function and error-handling Scott, At 01:30 PM 1/4/2008, you wrote: >Would there be any reason *not* to include an <?xml-result?> PI in the >result document? As I understand it, this sort of thing is what PIs were >designed for. Yes, it is. PIs are for application-specific information, which is for your application, a signal, but for anyone else's, noise. > (And is it an XML faux pas to start the PI with "xml-"?) Yes it is, and not just a faux pas but formally illegal. XML does reserve the characters "[X|x][M|m][L|l]" in names, for use by W3C. And the definition of PI targets does say: >The PI begins with a target >(<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-PITarget>PITarget) used to >identify the application to which the instruction is directed. The >target names "XML", "xml", and so on are reserved for >standardization in this or future versions of this specification. This doesn't actually exclude names that only start with "xml", but on the other hand, a PITarget is defined as a name, which does. (And in any case, you'd be abusing the spirit if not the letter to use it, etc.) Parsers, it is true, sometimes fail to enforce this restriction on names. In SGML, it was considered good manners actually for the PI target to identify the application at which it is aimed (hence the name "target"), and even for a NOTATION declaration to be used to enable a system to determine something about that application and perhaps resolve it dynamically. But no one does that any more. Nevertheless, it would seem like good design in principle to name your PI target in such a way that other applications that might eventually see your data (and the whole idea of XML is that you never say never about that) can have some assurance that the PI is really noise for them, not signal. >Just wondering if extraneous PIs in transformation source/result >documents are considered good coding convention or not. It'd be nice to >actually make use of them from time to time. That's what they're there for. Just don't go overboard and start to code actual document semantics in them (as opposed to application semantics). Note: this has stopped being an XSLT issue! :-) Cheers, Wendell ====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] document() function and e, Wendell Piez | Thread | Re: [xsl] document() function and e, David Carlisle |
RE: [xsl] document() function and e, Wendell Piez | Date | Re: [xsl] document() function and e, David Carlisle |
Month |