On 09/08/10 04:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Mike Fowler<mike@mlfowler.com> wrote:
>>> 1) XML2 is largely undocumented, giving rise to the problems encountered.
>>> Since the module is deprecated anyways, does it make more sense to get xslt
>>> handling moved into core and get it fully documented?
>
>> Yes, I think that would be better.
>
> I'm hesitant to consider pulling this into core when there's so little
> consensus on how it ought to act. It'd be better to have a solid,
> widely used contrib module *first*, rather than imagine that pulling it
> into core is somehow a cure for its problems.
Perhaps the first step forward is to pull xslt_process out of xml2 and
create a standalone xslt contrib module. Then at least it can lose the
stigma of being in a deprecated module and perhaps make it more visible
to users.
>
>>> 2) Pavel's regression test exposes a bug in libxslt. The stylesheet declares
>>> 5 parameters, but uses 12. Simplifying, take the stylesheet:
>
>> I'm not sure whether there's anything we can do about this.
>
> We should file a bug report with the libxslt authors, obviously.
Turns out the bug was filed in 2005 (see
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=307061). They are currently
taking a fairly loose interpretation of the XSLT spec. However that was
only one aspect of the concern. The other was that no errors were being
reported back in psql when the libxslt is generating errors. Is this
desirable?
Regards,
--
Mike Fowler
Registered Linux user: 379787