Hi: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Xerces-J recently added experimental support for XML 1.1 and >> Namespaces 1.1, so Xalan-J users acquire some limited support for XML 1.1 >> in the form of input documents and stylesheets. However, a serialized XML >> document is still restricted to version 1.0. Further, the set of >> permissible characters in QNames and NCNames has been expanded by XML 1.1 >> and Namespaces 1.1, but a stylesheet would not be able to match or select >> such a QName or NCName with a NameTest. >> > > Shouldn't we wait for the XPath 2.0 working group to adopt XML 1.1 before >implementing it? Has anyone evaluated the consequences of implementing an >XPath 2.0 parser (or 1.0 for that matter) based on XML 1.1? > >> It seems desirable to add experimental support for these candidate >> recommendations to the Xalan-J processors; I hope that's not a >> controversial statement. What I'd like to ask is: do people have a >> preference on which branch of Xalan-J they'd like to see that support - >> only the xslt20 branch, or the MAIN branch as well? > > I prefer to see this in the xslt20 branch. In fact, if people think XML 1.1 >is so important, and given that XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 specs are not final >yet, why don't we ask the expert groups to consider it?
I agree that we need to do this in xslt20 branch first. And we can request XSLT and XPATH expert groups to consider supporting XML 1.1 Thanks -Ramesh > >-- Santiago > > >
