A restriction to tokenized values seems
quite severe to me. No CDATA attributes? No URLs?
Even under my proposal “meta”
and “props” would share the same model.
In XSLT 2.0 I’m pretty sure that
they could be unified at the code level as well.
In XSLT 1.0 I’m not as sure. I admit
that all of the parsing, splitting and unescaping would get pretty ugly in XSLT
1.0. It might be easier to handle after pre-processing or through extension
functions.
From: Michael
Priestley [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005
12:59 PM
To: Paul Prescod
Cc:
Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal for
generalized attribute addition
I was thinking roughly the same thing, although perhaps with "meta"
as the generic ancestor, parallel with "props". If we are
willing to restrict the normal content of "meta" to be simple tokens
(ie simply don't allow parentheses except in the generalized form) then we
could use the exact same model for generalizing/roundtripping both attributes.
Effectively we'd have one generic ancestor attribute for conditional processing
attributes, and one for anything else. They could also share the same XSLT
library for unpacking the conditions if processing is desired in the
generalized form (any process that can't handle the generalized form would be
considered specialization-unaware).
Michael Priestley
