Re: [docbook-tc] Transclusions to XInclude mapping

[Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>]

Dave Pawson wrote:

> A 'nice to have' would be some indication of a good work flow process,
> such that transclusion/validation etc are performed in a sensible
> manner for good error
> reporting.

This is very similar to situation where XInclude is used for document
composition. You have to be able validate content prior transclusion
(e.g. in editor) and after transclusion (e.g. before invoking XSLT
transformation).

> Is transclusion seen as a separate step, or as one part of the xslt
> processing? isn't it
> about time that a multi-phase process was considered, for a reduction
> in complexity
> if nothing else?

It is a separate step, although it can be implemented as a part of
DocBook XSL stylesheets similarly to profiling support (actually XSLT
2.0 stylesheets at github already have experimental support for
transclusions).

> Query on how good error reporting can be for transclusion. The concern
> arises from
> any weak error reporting causing a significant rise in support
> requests on the mailing lists?
> Hence the issue of a separate transclusion phase, which would identify
> the error as
> being a transclusion error, rather than a transformation error?

If you will validate your document after transclusions are resolved you
can be pretty sure that you have correct input to next processing step.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------

OpenPGP digital signature