Carmelo's Post on Gathering Discretionary Implementation Issues

[atman <atman@vedavid.org>]

Please accept apologies folks.  While I've grudgingly come to tolerate 
MS b/c of the usability of Windows 2000/NT, my vedavid.org account fails 
to get along with teh default terminal type, so I'm using old basic 
Unix mail for the first time since '92.

Carmelo--and I think those of us at the NIST meeting--talked of gathering
points of processor conformance which were discretionary and, if my cur-
rently chaotic schedule and memory therein serves right, the suggestion 
was made to do this on a web page collecting them, and I think I mentioned
automating this with a CGI form--I can contribute a see-spot-run version.

Just now as I was writing up the xsl:attribute element, I noticed another 
such discretionary area, e.g., the xmlns prefix for a created attribute 
when the namespace URI is declared and no namespace prefix is stipulated, the
processor can make one of sorts.  Right or wrong, I wanted to note this, 
just as more obvious things like generate-id() behavior where some proces-
sors always make the saME id in teh same stylesheet/input instance circum-
stances but are not required to do so by the spec.  Cf., the current occas-
sion prompting this post, I'd like it if I could hop online and note it when 
it is fresh as there was another discretionary area I noticed a few days ago 
and had no easy way to report it--but tonight I wanted to procrastinate 
from writing the book and also participate somewhat in this auguste group.

So, XSLT 7.1.3 notes 

XSLT processors may make use of the prefix of the QName specified in the name attribute when selecting the prefix used for outputting the created attribute as XML; however, they are not required to do so and, if the prefix is xmlns, they must not do so. Thus, although it is not an error to do:

--
And I thought this might qualify as a discretionary area, nad a reason to 
raise teh point that a regular, easy, input point for such issues would be
fortuitous to gather as many as possible.  

In the spirit of offering to help, I'll write the HTML page for doing 
so, such that--I'm sure--someone could go one step further and automate 
the annotation of the output to an HTML page-- I only know enough/have 
time to get the CGI script to send the email to . . . somewhere, logically 
for starters, this list.

All this is proposed simply to start gathering unclear spec ideas easily and 
systematically when they come up, to encourage the appropriate plethora of
--or caucophony of--voices,

respectfully, and apologies if my recent schedule and bad connection caused me 
to miss this issue having been already resolved,

johnrobert