[dsdl-discuss] Re: FDIS Text for Part 8

At 2008-01-06 12:04 +0000, Martin Bryan wrote:
>This is not what was agreed in Kyoto. As I pointed out then, there is a need
>to be able to define language specific interpretations of entities,
>including some of the default ones, for which I believe support for for
>define-entity is compulsory. As all that is required to meet this
>requirement is to be able to generate an entity declaration as part of the
>prolog of the result document I see no reason why it should not be easily
>supportable.

As there is no ability in the XSLT specification to generate an
entity declaration as part of the prolog of the result document, I
think mandating this would rule out the use of the specification by
many people. I discount ad hoc mechanisms of vendor-specific
extensions or disable-output-escaping as the result tree in these
cases is not suitable for downstream processing without the necessity
of syntax serialization.

My recollection of the discussions in WG1 in Kyoto was that there
would be layered levels of conformance so that implementers of DSRL
could choose to conform to a particular level of functionality based
on the technology they use to implement the specification.

. . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
Comprehensive in-depth XSLT2/XSL-FO1.1 classes: Austin TX,Jan-2008
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
RSS feeds:     publicly-available developer resources and training
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/d/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/d/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
--
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)