[dsdl-discuss] Re: Part 10 and PSVI: no heart attacks please!

Rick, All,

> However, now that
> XSLT2 is becoming more standard, certainly by the time there
> are both Microsoft and SAXON implementations, that
> consideration need not be so strong.

Hmmm, a more negative way of thinking about that is that a
PSVI-supporting implementation is (still, and for quite a while) very
tightly constrained in its choice of underlying processor.

Remind me - is there an ISO way of specifying features, the
implementation of which is optional while retaining conformance?

> I still think we should
> avoid DSDL technologies having any augmented-infoset outputs,
> however, I don't see that we need to avoid PSVI input. I
> think it is important to have a good XSD co-existence story.

This seems reasonable to me.

This also bears on the question of whether we're happy for Part 5 to
remain silent on the question of datatype binding. Personally I think
binding should be communicated as part of a validation reporting
language (rather than infoset augmentation) -- which bears on other
threads hereabouts.

- Alex.

--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)