• To: tpassin@c...
• Subject: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:29:46 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <002401c1fadd$52121e00$0bf13044@tbp> (tpassin@c...)
• References: <NDBBLMPNADEOOKGELJALMEBICJAA.evan@e...><200205130917.KAA23038@p...> <002401c1fadd$52121e00$0bf13044@tbp>

> Well, remember, the way it is now, you ***will*** get a PSVI even with
> no-schema processing.

yes but

a) the dtd "PSVI" is far less intrusive and where it does intrude it
   negatively impacts on stylesheet portability, I want less of that not
   more.

and

b) A DTD will only be applied if the document specifies one. A Schema
   processor can apply any schema it likes to any document, so I have no
   way of controlling, as a stylesheet author, what will happen to any
   input document. 

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• References:
  • RE: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: "Evan Lenz" <evan@e...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: How to spell "No PSVI" in XSLT 2.0 ?
• Next by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Previous by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Next by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread