• From: Daniel Barclay <Daniel.Barclay@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:48:43 -0500

Richard Lanyon wrote:
> ... It's difficult to know what is missing,
> unless someone is seriously advocating that XSLT ought to act on the
> post-schema-validation infoset (which would seem a bit odd, as you're
> just about to change the document, presumably to comply with a
> different schema, in which case you're going to have to
> schema-validate all over). 

Would it really be that odd?  Wouldn't it be reasonable to validate the 
input XML against the schema that you assumed in writing the transformation,
including using defaulted values added to the post-schema-validation 
infoset?  (If effective attribute values were meant to be transformed,
wouldn't it be reasonable to want to process schema-provided values as well 
as explicitly-given values?)



Daniel
-- 
Daniel Barclay
Digital Focus
Daniel.Barclay@d...

• References:
  • RE: transformations
    • From: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by Date: Re: URNs as SYSTEM IDs
• Previous by thread: RE: transformations
• Next by thread: Re: transformations
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread