3526 2006-07-23 20:58:32 +0000 May [xsl:validation] take an AVT? 2006-08-16 18:49:56 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XSLT 2.0 Candidate Recommendation PC Linux CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 colin mike public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 10651 0 colin 2006-07-23 20:58:32 +0000 I have always assumed it may not, but I cannot find proof of this in the spec. The error messages talk about the effective value of the attribute, which suggest that it might be possible to pass an AVT. 10652 1 mike 2006-07-23 21:24:52 +0000 For instructions like xsl:element, the syntax proforma is normative: this has <xsl:element name = { qname } namespace? = { uri-reference } inherit-namespaces? = "yes" | "no" use-attribute-sets? = qnames type? = qname validation? = "strict" | "lax" | "preserve" | "strip"> <!-- Content: sequence-constructor --> </xsl:element> Attributes that may be AVTs are shown in curly braces; therefore "validation" is not an AVT. For literal result elements, we have to rely on the fact that 11.1.1 says that the allowed values of the attribute are defined in 19.2, and in 19.2 the possible values are enumerated in the text as strict|lax|preserve|strip. The use of the term "effective value" is perhaps injudicious. It's not hyperlinked to the definition of the term "effective value" as used in relation to AVTs, and is in fact intended as a reference to the statement "If both attributes are omitted, the effect is the same as specifying the validation attribute with the value specified in the default-validation attribute of the containing xsl:stylesheet element; if this is not specified, the effect is the same as specifying validation='strip'." I think we could probably add clarity by stating explicitly in section 11.1.1 that the value of xsl:validation must be one of these four values and that AVTs are not allowed. 10656 2 colin 2006-07-24 05:19:45 +0000 I would endorse your proposed addition to 11.1.1. I spent a lot of time last night double-checking that section, but couldn't find anything definite. 11182 3 mike 2006-08-16 18:49:44 +0000 I have added clarifying text to section 11.1.1 as proposed.