This is the mail archive of the docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list .


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Re: needing clarification about XSL transformation


Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Vitaly Ostanin wrote:


With this style xslt-processor must not copy comments and PI.
This style not overriding built-in templates, so saxon is
incorrect.


  ah, so as i read this, the conflict resolution is that,
even if i have a template that matches "node()", that will
be overridden by the more explicit built-in rule that matches
"comment()" explicitly, whose effect is to do nothing with
the comment.

  perhaps it's just kay's wording, but in his book at the
bottom of p. 315, he writes (after a list of how template
matching is done):

  "If there are *no* [my emphasis] templates that match
the selected node, the built-in template for the relevant
node type is used."

  the way i read this is that the "node()" test *would*
match a comment(), and thus my template would be used.
apparently, that's not what he meant, but you can see
how it could be interpreted that way, i hope.

but that actually would imply that kay contrdicts himself.


XPath rec says: A node test node() is true for any node of any type *whatsoever*

anyway: if you are really interested in resolving this issue, i'd suggest you post it at the xsl mailing list, both kay and veillard (author of xsltproc, if i remember right) will probably be eager to proove their transformer is conformant.

or you take a pragmatic approach and just include comment() and pi(), since the w3c recommendations are ambiguous sometimes.

markus


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]