Joerg and Arved,

Thanks for sorting this out while I was asleep.  I talk about these 
things in terms of the parser, in spite of the offence it might give to 
specification purists, because that is where I have spent a lot of my 
time lately.

J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Don't look at XML AttValue, look at the XSLFO property expression language.
> Somehow it is implicit that all attributes in a XSLFO document are parsed
> as expressions which are defined in 5.9 "Expressions".

This is the critical point.  The namespace not only restricts the 
elements and attributes, but imposes itself on the contents of the 
attribute values passed in by the XML parser.  I need to think about 
this a bit more, but it seems to me that the recent ruling on <string> 
with respect to the "format" attribute, which makes my flesh creep every 
time I think about it, disguises an attempt to smuggle part of the 
Transform namespace's constraints into the Format namespace.  They are 
completely different expression environments, which is why it doesn't 
work.  Has anyone else given this any thought?

"Lord, to whom shall we go?"

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to