This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 2343 - Syntax for @mode and @exclude-result-prefixes ins't alligned
Summary: Syntax for @mode and @exclude-result-prefixes ins't alligned
Status: CLOSED LATER
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XSLT 2.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Working drafts
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Kay
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-10-14 22:19 UTC by Sergey Dubinets
Modified: 2007-02-25 23:56 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sergey Dubinets 2005-10-14 22:19:30 UTC
Value space of both attributes is the same (with the difference that missing
mode means #default). But:

   mode= #all   Valid
   mode=   Invalid 

while 

   exclude-result-prefixes= #all   Invalid
   exclude-result-prefixes=   Valid 

It'd be better to have compatible behavior and simular wording.

Relative topics: extension-element-prefixes and xsl:strip-space
Comment 1 Sergey Dubinets 2005-10-14 22:29:14 UTC
Duplicate in @mode is and error
Duplicate in @exclude-result-prefixes is not
Comment 2 Michael Kay 2005-10-15 09:04:53 UTC
Thanks for the comment. The last call period is over, but the comment will be
held over and considered during the next phase. However, we're now applying very
strict criteria, and only making changes to fix errors and inconsistencies, not
simply because someone has identified a way of improving the language.

It's probably true that these two attributes could have been made more
consistent. However, their value space isn't the same (one is a list of QNames,
the other a list of NCNames), and they serve very different purposes. And as you
point out in your final remark, once we start hunting for opportunities to make
disparate things more consistent, there are a lot of places to look. At this
stage, we're all keen to get finished.

Michael Kay
personal response
Comment 3 Jim Melton 2007-02-25 23:56:28 UTC
Closing bug because commenter has not objected to the resolution posted and more than two weeks have passed.