Re: XSL Errata document updated

At 18:43 25/10/2002, Paul Grosso wrote:

>At 18:11 2002 10 25 +0100, Dave Pawson wrote:
>
>>At 17:27 25/10/2002, Paul Grosso wrote:
>>>It is true that src="url('TH0317A.jpg')" would probably make
>>>a better example.  I did not write this example, and I did
>>>not notice this until you mentioned it.
>>>
>>>However, I believe src="'url(TH0317A.jpg)'" should also be 
>>>valid.  The double quotes are just part of being an XML 
>>>attribute, and then the single quotes make the attribute 
>>>value a string.  The uri-specification datatype says it's 
>>>a sequence of characters, so a string should be a valid 
>>>value, and the quotes inside the url() part are optional.
>>
>>Compatibility with xslt and xpath Paul?
>> (or at least less stress in moving from one to another)
>
>I don't understand you here.
>
>
>>- 1 to your example, since functions 
>>are not in single quotes, content to functions
>>is?
>>e.g. "document('file.ext')"
>
>url() isn't a function.  It is not listed in section 5.10.

Oh! OK. Looks like a function... to me? A name, content in braces?
I'm more bothered that if you are right, its an exception
to 'the family' (xslt, xpath, xsl-fo).




>The uri-specification data type says:
>  A sequence of characters that is "url("...
>
>but doesn't say that url() is a function.

That's getting really picky. It may be correct spec wise ......but.




>I claim the expression 'url(xxx)'--when given as the value
>of an XSL FO property--evaluates, according to the XSL FO
>expression language rules, to the sequence of characters:
>  url(xxx)
>which is a valid uri-specification.
>
>I'm just trying to interpret the spec, not stick up for it,
>so don't tell me you don't like what it says--send those
>messages to the comment list.

<grin/>OK, I think I've made the point!




>Only respond to me if you think my interpretation of what the 
>spec says right now can be proven to be wrong using the words
>of the spec.  

Just crossed your name off the to list :-)


regards DaveP